Impeachment: Biden's view

[gateley]

This is taken from a NEWSWEEK interview done in early August. I had been curious as to what his position is and why.

NEWSWEEK: You once called Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal to his face. You also told Dick Cheney that, were he not a constitutional officer, the president should fire him. So when it comes to the mistakes made in Iraq, why should impeachment of President Bush be off the table?


BIDEN: It shouldn’t be. But impeachment like everything else is a matter of priorities and responsibility. In order to move on impeachment now, we would be put in a position at a very, very delicate time in our nation’s history, of having necessarily to take our eye off the ball on a host of other things that will have longer-lasting impact on the security of this country. As a practical matter, it sucks all the oxygen out of the air. We would effectively be paralyzed for the next six months or longer. … The alternative, and it’s taken me time to think through, I think we should be acquiring and accumulating all the data that is appropriate for possibly bringing criminal charges against members of this administration at a later date.

snip

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20186211/site/newsweek /

[Atman]

1. FUCK BIDEN. Another lilly-livered Vichy Dem

If WAR CRIMES aren't reason enough for impeachment, what is? A blow job?

Oh, yeah. Never mind.

.

[AndyA]

2. Remember, 9/11 changed EVERYTHING.

EVERYTHING.

I think it's incredible that so many are willing to give Bushco a pass on their activities, all the while saying it can be done when he leaves office. WTF? Why wait?

Getting a BJ is impeachable, but slashing the Constitution isn't.

What is this country coming to? :shrug:

[bdamomma]

your last comment

"What is this country coming to?"

are going to, going to the dogs right now.

[gateley]

14. And look how long the Blow Job debacle dragged on -- it was THE number

one news story for how long??? At this time we have troops to bring home and take care of, shore up the diving USD, a myriad of other horrors.

And Jesus, it was the fucking Republicans who said a blow job was impeachable -- not Joe Biden! And NOBODY is saying the injustices this admin are perpetrating aren't impeachable, just that we don't have the luxury of pursuing it now amidst all the current chaos.

He's NOT willing to give Bushco a pass on their activities. He mentions brining CRIMINAL charges later. I'd LOVE to see Bush, et al behind bars. A blow job would take on a whole new meaning for them.

[Voltaire]

16. If these bastards are not impeached

And the Constitution is finally and completely shredded, it will not make a difference if the goddamned war ends or NOT! Who will end the war when the executive is not brought to account??? Who will end that war??? Impeach the Motherfucker Already!!! THEN we will see how he begins to focus on bringing the war to an end. Imminent jail time tends to sharpen one's mind really well.

[Atman]

17. He MENTIONS it? Aw...how nice of him.

There was a Sense Of Senate vote taken today over invading Iran. They voted a couple of days ago to condemn a fucking newspaper ad.

Where is the Sense of Senate resolution or condemnation of Bush? How about at least firing a shot across the bow of The SS Bush? Instead, we get NOTHING. Just more bloviating and "Hey, just wait some more! We might do something about it some day!" It's utter fucking nonsense.

.

[gateley]

29. Please, I'm enraged, too -- their actions suffocate me. I was encouraged

(glass half full) that he MENTIONED it rather than saying ... we can't do now, period. Stop.

Regardless of how unjust and unfair and just fucking insane it seems to us right now, we're still going to keep moving through one day at a time. I think we've been shown that the Dems are not being receptive to the impeachment possibility, so instead of going "WE INSIST!" with nothing coming of it, we gotta do what we can do with what we have now. It's not my preference, I'm just being realistic and, for once in my life, adult in accepting the facts.

The first coach for the Seattle Seahawks used to say after every single game -- we gotta play the hand we're dealt. I guess that's my attitude at this time. it's less harmful for my ulcer, too.

[Atman]

32. Sometimes we deal the cards, too.

Nice jab with the "adult" remark, btw.

:eyes:

You are creating your own facts. If we moved forward with impeachment, a new set of facts would emerge. I'm not content with the facts that we're dealing with now, which state that we spread our ass cheeks and lube up for another year and a half of gaping.

.

[gateley]

36. Okay, seriously, seriously, seriously

what do you think would happen if we went balls-out and pursued this? If, let's just say, that the Dems, said, okay, let's go for it. How do you envision the resulting scenario unfolding?

And listen, I'm indebted to you for my blue paperclip bracelet and my education on Polish resistance, so now I turn to you to explain for me how you think this might work, and what the repercussions might be.

Standing by.

[Atman]

44. First things first...

I apologize if it appears that I'm just busting balls after the kind words and the pleasant exchange re: the paper clip thread. I try not to pay attention to the names of those to whom I'm responding so that they don't subconsciously (or consciously!) bias my response. Now that you pointed that fact out, I'm already feeling like I should back off!

And you see, that's part of the larger problem. Once these clowns all start treating each other as friends, objectivity is lost. They're not friends. They're beholden to no one but their constituents, and the American people, but currently they're not acting as if they understand that.

What I think would happen if "we" went balls-out and pursued impeachment? First of all, it would demonstrate to the American people that Democrats do indeed have spine, and the temerity to face tough challenges. Currently, the approval of the Democratically controlled congress is around 11%. That's not just abysmal, it's horrifying. Because they were put in place to end the war, not keep it going because the BMOC is sooo dreamy. So, once we stood up, once some leader, anyone (maybe that's the problem...no leaders) stood up to the podium and explained why this MUST be done, for the sake of the democracy, for the future of their children and grandchildren, I don't think the public would remained focused on Larry Craig's bathroom antics, or MoveOn's ads, or Britney's shaved vag.

Don't get me wrong...it will take leadership. STRONG LEADERSHIP. We don't have that. We have capitulation and prevarication and fraidy-cats.

But it will also send a very strong message to one particular individual who has so far been given the tacit approval to do anything he wants without recourse... George Bush. Put it another way even all of us laymen can understand...why do you drive 75 or 80 in the interstate when the speed limit is 65? Because virtually every state hiway patrol has given drivers the tacit approval to do so. You're not going to be pulled over and ticketed unless you're REALLY breaking the law and hitting 85 or 90.

Bush has been driving at about 110 for almost six years now, because he has been given the approval to do so by the Congress. Pull his ass over. Give him a breathalyser. Let him sleep it off in lock up. Send him to rehab. Put an ankle bracelet on him.

Then see if he takes us a little more seriously.

.

[gateley]

51. No no no no!

I didn't for ONE MINUTE think you were attacking ME. And I knew who you were and I didn't couch my words, because I wasn't attacking YOU. (And I'm feeling a twinge of Catholic guilt for bringing it up now, except I wanted you to know my question was sincere.)

Okay. So it will take strong leadership which we don't have.* Amen, Atman. We need more than a token first shot and a retreat when that fire is returned which seems like what is happening now.

So if that's step one, how do we get that strong leadership? Our current outrage as evidenced by the chilling 11% approval rate isn't doing it. Our calls and letters aren't doing it. Our protests aren't doing it.

Biden (yeah, him again) said we need to give them more Democrats. Okay, that seems like good step in the right direction. But when is the soonest that can happen? Not soon enough, of course.

So if that's not acceptable, then what? What is Plan 1B?

I'm eagerly awaiting chapter 2. (I TOLD you I'd be back for continuing education).

*I watched a video this morning with Wolf Blitzer interviewing Nancy Pelosi and he brought up the disappointment and lack of faith shown by the "base" -- he was actually pretty good holding her to the fire. She was sputtering and sounding nervous and defensive and exhibited none of the strength she showed when she was first on the scene. We try, but.... poor little us. Pretty much summed up what the prevailing feeling seems to be in the Dem den.

By the way, when I hadn't gotten a response to this question and thought you'd signed off (to slay more dragons) I asked another poster (guy with the colored skull) the same question. I'm interested to see what his response will be.

[Atman]

65. I'm going to take this in a dramatically different direction

I keep asking myself "why?" Why, with the vast majority of the country backing you, would anyone continue to bow down to the will of a despised, failed president with historically low approval ratings? That's not how politics is supposed to work. Democrats should be telling Republicans to go piss up a rope right now, and they should be applauded for it, and the network news should be hammering the impotent president. But it isn't happening.

Why not? It's not as simple as "we must support the troops." It can't be, because every poll show that most Americans believe supporting the troops means bringing them home. So why? What the F is going on?

And I hearken back to the early days of the Bush presidency and a certain historical, criminal even which has yet to be resolved, six years later, despite the supposed efforts of the most sophisticated investigative resources on the planet.

Ask Tom Daschel about it. Or even Patrick Leahy, who, despite his tough words, never really seems to follow through with tough action.

Imagine if you will what it would be like to open up an envelope in your mail and have a bunch of deadly spores fly up into your face. You'd never know it was coming. You can try to protect yourself from all sort of threats, but this shit is beyond wicked...how do you protect yourself from an enemy who has already proved itself to be ruthless, soul-less, willing to go to any lengths? Again, imagine...you can ride in a bullet-proof limo, you can sequester yourself in your DC brownstone, you can try to hide. But maybe it's not a letter...maybe it's a package from a fake courier. Maybe it's your morning newspaper.

POOF. You open it, and in short order you're going to be dead.

BushCo sent the message early. "DON'T FUCK WITH US. WE MEAN BUSINESS." The anthrax letters to the Democratic Leadership was the horse's head in the bed of the Democratic Party.

So then, what do we do? So far, they seem to be doing just what we all would probably do...pretend to be tough for the talking heads, but duck and cover when the final vote comes.

The only way to overcome this is via a truly brave, strong LEADER. Someone willing to do what patriots used to do...put their lives on the line for their country. We don't have that now. We have spineless posers who are rushing to pick up their tuxes for the next Capitol Hill cocktail party so they can collect their lobbyist's checks.

I wish I had the answer. I don't, short of what I just stated in the previous paragraph. In the meantime, I watch the media anoint a woman for whom not a single American has voted, nearly a year and half before the election...a woman whose stated positions are at their core no different than the current administration's.

What can we do? I fear we'll do what we always do...pay our ISP bills and man the keyboards. America is desperately in search of a hero to get us out of this mess. I wish I knew who that hero is.

.

[gateley]

73. Not to worry. Jesus will rise again.

I just posted somewhere that I heard someone speak when HW was still in the WH. The essence was that people KNEW not to fuck with the Bush family. I have no doubt that still holds. Just an aside.

I'm going to take it back a bit. Okay. I'm with you on needing a leader. I'm with you on the cancer in the system -- it IS systemic. I've long thought we've gone past the point of band aids, we need to almost implode and start all over again. We DO need someone to kick ass and take over.

So let's say that someone emerges and he or she is not a whack job like Hitler or someone who buys into their own hero-ness like Castro. That person is willing to do what it takes. That person is willing to lead the revolution. We the People are willing and eager to follow.

Day one. This is where I get stumped.

I may be focusing too closely on the machinations, but I just don't understand HOW that leader is going to go about bringing a rebirth.

If it takes electing one, then another, then another, Bush will be in his grave before we get it to where it needs to be. Even if we elect one, then two more then three more and it exponentially grows from there, he'll still be out of the White House and being his vile self somewhere else.

Since that's my current belief of where we are now and what it will take to get THERE, that's why I'm in agreement with Biden's opinion on impeachment. We can't do it NOW. So let's do what we can so we can keep chugging along and able to keep paying our ISP bill so we can keep manning the keyboards and work at getting the foundation built that will enable us to achieve what we want as soon as it's feasible.

In the big picture, I'm in agreement with you that if the constitution is shredded, none of the other things we worry about will matter. To take it a step further, in the bigger picture, if we don't stop the oceans rising, the extinction of the rain forest, the death of the coral reefs, and on and on, what will the constitution matter? In both these examples, we have to keep food on our tables, roofs over our heads, treatment for our vets AS we work toward achieving those bigger, weightier goals.

And frankly, if Bush gets off scott free, well? (Wow. Profound.) Those who voiced the opinions that when the "at a later time" arrived we'd be told more important had arisen that needed our attention, and I can't deny that. But maybe by then we'll be a step or two closer on our way, and we won't care as much. Bush will ultimately have to live with himself.

So we're back to where we started. We both want impeachment. You feel it should be done now. I think now is not feasible.

Sigh.

[PatSeg]

75. May sanity and reason prevail!

Well said.

[Atman]

77. Well, let's leave it at that...

I sincerely thank you for one of the most thoughtful exchanges I've enjoyed on DU in a long time. We obviously agree on many aspects of the issue, but probably won't come to a consensus on how to achieve our respective goals. But it was nice reading some articulate, impassioned arguments devoid of the vitriol so many of these threads wind up showcasing.

I'll keep working my angle. You keep working yours. Wear that paper clip, and tell anyone who asks why you're doing so. And in the end, if enough people are this reasonable and desirous of change, maybe something good will eventually come of it. We can only hope, eh?

Peace, bro!

.

[gateley]

79. And before I go...

I haven't heard the term 'lillie-livered' in years -- Ha! That was great!

As I've already come to expect, you've broadened my horizons and for that I'm truly appreciative. Thank YOU for your generosity once again.

See you soon!

[gateley]

4. It's a realistic view of how we need to prioritize. If we were to begin proceedings

now -- especially for both Bush and Cheney -- it would probably drag on until the elections. And $$$, of course.

I much prefer his idea of bringing CRIMINAL charges at a later date.

[Voltaire]

6. If they are not impeached while in office

there will be no later date. Believe THAT!

[Atman]

10. Get fucking real!

If they won't impeach him while in office, while he's killing tens of thousands of people and sucking the treasury dry, if it's not a "priority" while it's actually happening, what the bloody fuck makes you think it will be a "priority" after he's back on the ranch clearing brush? Are you DAFT? No one will bring criminal charges against this man. You're completely divorced from reality.

.

[Voltaire]

18. Then spend the election money on impeachment

At this point is doesn't make a goddamned bit of difference who takes over this mess anyway. I'd almost prefer a Republican so they don't blame us for every fucking thing that has happened. WHICH THEY WILL!!!

[Atman]

22. Bingo

The Republicans want one of two things: Hillary in '08, who will just continue their policies, or someone else, who will continue to kowtow to them and by default continue their policies. So far, they're batting a thousand.

.

[Lucinda]

3. I agree with him at this point n/t

[Coexist]

5. actually, I would enjoy seeing Bush go to jail after his failed presidency

rather than having the little that's left of it taken away.

Cheney and Rice, too.

Very sweet.

[Voltaire]

7. And who is going to pursue that?

The Democrats? The Right-Wing Court system?

[Atman]

12. Correct. Why will it be a PRIORITY after he's left office?

The argument then will be "But we have so much rebuilding to do...it's not a priority." Some people need to seriously wake up.

.

[gateley]

15. Well if that's what's going to happen -- and apparently you know that is is --

then you're correct. Let's just forget about even considering it. Whew! Glad that's dealt with.

[Atman]

19. I'm sorry, did you snark something?

I couldn't hear it through the din of bullshit apologizing.

.

[gateley]

31. I'm not that clever, but thanks for the compliment indicating I might be. nt

[Voltaire]

21. To pursue it after the fact will take much political courage

Seen any of that in the Democrats lately?

[yurbud]

8. why not BOTH impeachment AND criminal charges?

Whether impeachment succeeds or not, you could still file criminal charges once Bush is out of office.

Someone just needs to divert his plane from Paraquay to the Hague when he flees the country.

[Pierre.Suave]

9. one word

BULLSHIT.

There is NOTHING more important right now than the survival of our CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. Letting the bush cabal get away with it is the same as saying it is ok.

and THAT is NOT OK!

IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE THE ONLY THING THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH RIGHT NOW. IMPEACHMENT OF ALL OF THE FUCKING BASTARDS. THEN, WE REPLACE BIDEN AND THE REST OF THE SPINELESS MOTHERFUCKING "DEMOCRATS"...

[Voltaire]

11. I am with YOU

No compromise. No quarter. No excuses.

[Pierre.Suave]

13. Exactly

it is time for all or nothing, put the fuck up or shut the fuck up and go home in disgrace.

no excuses.

[gateley]

20. So are you saying -- and I'm sincerely asking for clarification of your statement --

that this is worth dropping virtually everything else for? EVERYTHING?

I don't understand how one can think that it should be the ONLY thing we are concerned about now. Especially now.

And, out of curiosity, if that did happen, would you still want to 'replace the rest of the spineless motherfucking democrats"?

[Atman]

24. Yes, I'm saying that.

Health care, tax reform, infrastructure, schools, whatever. WHATEVER. You can't sell out the constitution for short-term convenience. Because once you've done that, there is no turning back.

.

[PatSeg]

26. "short-term convenience"?

I find that a poor choice of words. This is probably a pointless debate.

[murbley40]

46. Iraq?

[Voltaire]

27. There is nothing else

Bush is the immovable object. And we must impeach him and convict him to move him. Anything else is vaudeville. Any other method is an excuse to not do what the Constitution clearly requires.

[Pierre.Suave]

53. YEs

and yes

[Froward69]

38. thats more than one word...

use your brain... bush/cheney in handcuffs is a dream of mine also. be patent! as we didn't kill hitler knowing the dipshit would help end WWII in our favor... so as bush/cheney will help the Democratic cause.

[gateley]

41. Thank you for your voice of reason - and not just because I agree! :-) nt

[Pierre.Suave]

54. ...

what exactly is your cause?

[gateley]

63. If you were asking me, it's not a 'cause' really, just my opinion on why

I agree with Biden's approach to impeachment at this time.

If you weren't asking me -- sorry!

[Pierre.Suave]

66. you mentioned the "democratic cause"

Which made me wonder what exactly you percieve the "democratic cause" to be?

Is it the continuation of our constitutional democracy? If it is then nothing else can be more important than impeachment.

[PatSeg]

23. We'd all love to see Bush/Cheney impeached

but impeachment proceedings would throw our government and our country into total chaos, especially when Iraq is the most important issue of the day. It might be emotionally satisfying for many of us, but would be a disastrous and divisive diversion.

I know this will not appease those who want what they want right now. I have felt the same way, but I took a breath and let reason set in.

[Atman]

25. No, clearly we ALL wouldn't.

The country IS IN TOTAL CHAOS. And it gets worse every day a rogue government is allowed to run roughshod over the constitution. Once they've completely decimated it, which is coming soon, you'll be wishing for the good old days of "total chaos."

.

[PatSeg]

30. I agree with you

that the country is in total chaos (well, maybe not TOTAL), but I don't think we can fight chaos with more chaos.

[Atman]

33. What, exactly, do we have to lose? Seriously?

If the WORST that can happen is that we lose the constitution either way, shouldn't we fight for something less than the worst?

.

[Pierre.Suave]

56. How exactly

do you propose to end the Iraq debacle without removing bush/cheney et al from office?

[Dr Fate]

28. In other words, Bush gets off scot-free, thanks to "centrist" cowards. n/t

n/t

[gateley]

34. What is with you people who KNOW what is going to happen in the future?

We've been surprised and blindsided enough to learn that we can't predict ANYTHING with certainty.

For example, I would have been CERTAIN that no Dems would have voted for Lieberman's Iraq disgrace today. (That's actually not a good example based on past showings, but you know what I mean.)

[Atman]

35. Actually, that was a PERFECT example

If you can count on the Democrats for anything, it's that they can't be counted on for ANYTHING.

.

[Dr Fate]

39. Wrong. I'm never suprised or blind-sided by the DEM "centrists" caving to conservatives.

No, I dont know what you mean. Many DLCers have openly supported Joe (I-3rd Party), even when he ran against a legit DEM nominee- so no, I'm not blindsided by the fact that DLCers like Hillary still agrees with him now.

I can tell you that I KNOW the "centrists" in the party have every intention of letting Bush walk- count on it.

[Steve_in_California]

37. Mature vision is the product of long experience.

As proven in the negative by some of the comments here. No matter whether anyone here likes it, to keep this country moving forward, we must do business with Republicans. I have seen impeachment efforts directed at two Presidents and I must say that Senator Biden is right on the money with his take on this: it paralyzes the country . . . everything just stops . . . the federal government freezes and nothing gets done.

It is my sincere hope and desire that the next Democratic President lead the country in its search for justice; that defense contractors are required to repay tax dollars lost to fraud and abuse (running into the tens of billions); and that government officials are held accountable for their actions after their term in office expires.

It may not be the most immmediate kind of justice, but that only sweetens the prospect.

[gateley]

40. Beautifully and thoughtfully stated. nt

[Dr Fate]

43. Not really. I think the "mature vision" and "experience" that brought us the Iraq war stinks. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

42. In other words: "keep your powder dry" for "the fight that lays ahead"!

LOL! We have heard that comforting stall before-right before many lost battles.

Face it- the "centrists" in our party have no intention of bringing Bush to justice. They dont have the brains, guts or creativity to pull it off.

Bush will walk- count on it.

Ahhh yes- the "mature vision" of the "centrists"- the same "vision" that brought them to support Bush in starting the current war in Iraq, no doubt.

[gateley]

45. I do understand there's no guarantee that criminal charges would be pursued

"later" but my concern now is what happens to everything else if we were actively pursuing it? Another poster said that NOTHING is as important as this because once the Constitution is shredded, NOTHING can help kids, health care, vets, etc. Well, hell, to take that a step further if we don't stop the ice floes from moving and melting, extinction of species upon which we rely for LIFE, etc., the constitution being intact is not going to matter a bit.

My point is, we can't heal our planet at the expense of ignoring other matters that affect our lives. We can't focus on only one thing (impeachment) at the expense of other matters that affect our lives. Ideally we could do it ALL NOW, but as I said before, I don't think we have that luxury.

The bottom line is we need Bush out of there. It would be such sweet justice if he were sent packing and it would go a long way in healing our outraged souls. I just don't think it's a "mature"(!) approach to drop everything else to pursue it at this time.

And seriously (I asked another poster but didn't get a response) if by some miracle the Dem's decided to take up the mantle and move ahead with it now, how do you envision it unfolding? What would the next step be? And the next? I'm honestly trying to see if there IS any way this could be accomplished.

[Voltaire]

47. Simple

If you have the majority, you conduct no business BUT impeachment. Nothing. Worked for the GOP didn't it? And the media went right along. If there is no justice done here, it will not matter what else the Congress does. Ask the Nixon people who are still alive how compliant they got with the Congress when they found their nuts in a vice!

[PatSeg]

49. Yeah, tell that to the soldiers in Iraq

Tell them that we're putting aside the war while we pursue impeachment. I'm sure they won't mind.

And since when do we want to emulate the GOP?

[Voltaire]

55. The soldier's are the PRESIDENT'S job

He is their Commander in Chief. He should be forced to bring them home. Let's not pretend that Congress has ANYTHING to do with the troops in this instance. It is Bush that has used them and abused them. He won't let the Congress get near anything military except give them the money that he himself has continually extorted from the Treasury. So it is Congress' duty to impeach him in order to bring that military home. You think that if we play nice then at some point Bush will see the light and end the war?? Ain't gonna happen. You should know that by now.

[gateley]

59. Oh God no I don't think Bush will see the light. Listen, (I sound like Biden)

I just don't know HOW the Congress can impeach him -- I don't understand the machinations. It's my belief the way things are stacked, it wouldn't be achievable. I'm more than open for a civics lesson -- I really AM trying to understand why so many think this is a viable option at this time.

[Dr Fate]

48. You are right- the "mature vision centrists" in the party would blow the whole thing.

Nothing would unfold- they would blow it just like they blow everything else for the rest of the party. The media would characterize all the "centrist" DEMS as lying about WMDs too- and they would meekly allow it this framing- as they always succumb to media framing.

Face it- you oppose impeachment b/c deep down, you know the pro-war "centrists" in the party dont have the heart, brains, work ethic or creativity to pull it off.

All the other goals you suggest wont get far either-and "we dont have the votes" will be the excuse for that too.

[PatSeg]

50. That's over the top

You are so anti pretty much everything and everyone, it is clouding all reason.

[gateley]

52. No -- he's right! I admit it! He is my BOYFRIEND! Sorry. Just thought his

joke should be responded to with another. I DO have a sense of humor, you know.

[Dr Fate]

68. I wasnt joking. "Centrists" dont have the guts or will to carry out impeachment. It's no joke...

...its fact.

If they did, they wouldnt be making so many excuses or doing their damnedest to run out the clock on it.

[Dr Fate]

67. False. But I am indeed anti-Republican- and I also oppose the "centrists" who cover for them.

Otherwise you are characterizing me falsely as a replacment for refuting my correct points and predictions.

I am "for" many things- (Dissent, honest media, justice, cars, apple pie, cheeseburgers, big-tits, John Stewart, getting to church on time, etc)...But I'll admit-corrupt Republicans & "centrists" who are frightened of Bush/media are not included on the list.

[PatSeg]

71. Okay then

You are "for" impeachment, but how on earth could that happen? Even if EVERY democrat in congress voted to impeach Bush, it would NOT happen. So it would just turn out to be a lot of theatrics that would accomplish nothing and detract from the issues that congress could be working on.

I'm not defending everything the dems have done and I have been critical of them many times, but I would not waste my energy demanding something that is essentially impossible with the small majority they now hold.

I'm just being realistic, not combative.

[Dr Fate]

72. I agree that it wont happen- thanks to the "centrists" who have no will or spine to make it happen.

They would like us to think that it is to too difficult to get the public behind removing the most unpopular president in history, who happens to preside over what one of the most unpopular wars in our history. They keep assuring us that the public will turn take Bush's side on this- LOL!

Fact is, they just dont have the creativity, guts or work ethic to work for it.

In fact, I'll bet we coulndt even get the "centrists" in congress to even call for Bush's resignation, which is excuse proof and requires no votes at all.

On that note, what is their excuse for not even doing that?

They wont even call for his resignation, or even attempt to censure him (but they will censure Moveon-LOL!)- so of course they would fail at impeachment.

Just because pro-war DEM "centrists" who unfortunatley control the party would indeed fail at impeachment doesnt mean that competent, hard-working people couldnt pull it off, and it doesnt mean pro-impeachment people shouldnt point this out.

[PatSeg]

78. Ironically, we need a Goldwater

who had the guts to go to his president and tell him he had to resign.

[Dr Fate]

80. I disagree. It's not for conservatives to demand Bush's resignation-its the job of Democrats.

This is an apparent flaw in certain "centrist" thinking.

They seem to expect the Republican owned media to attack Bush FOR them. Or at least they tell us to blame the Republican owned media every time the DEMS fail to frame things correctly and are "fooled" into taking Bush's side.

They seem to expect an imaginary Goldwater to ask Bush to resign FOR them.

Sorry, but it is the timid DEM centrists who are to chicken to stand up and demand that Bush resign-much less talk about impeachment- that is NOT the job of Bush's own allies.

But seriously- I know that "we dont have the votes" is the "centrist" excuse for being too frightened to impeach- but what is their excuse for merely calling for his resignation?

That requires no votes at all-and would generate interesting debate- no one can seem to answer that question whenever I ask it. Can you?

[Voltaire]

57. Bravo

A fat lot of good that centrism and moderation has done. This government has been radically altered. In order to bring it back into balance it will have to be radically re-altered. Nervous Nellies need not apply. Compromise is not an option.

[Think82]

58. Voltaire

that kind of thinking makes you part of the problem. It is possible to be passionate about common sense.

[Dr Fate]

70. I'm sorry, but people who oppose the far right are not part of the problem.

The people who agree with them, vote with them, cave in to them and refuse to fight them are part of the problem.

[Dr Fate]

69. True, anti-war Moderates like myself are not the problem. That's why I put "centrist" in quotes.

"Centrists" would have you believe that agreeing with right-wing postitons of FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and Bush himslef on impeachment and the war is somehow "moderate."

I truly dont mind true, politically moderate & centrist positions-

I have new for DU's "moderates" and "centrists" with their dry powder-refusing to fight the far right (ie, refusing to filibuster Alito, refusing to even censure Bush or call for his resignation, much less impeach) and supporting far-right wars based on lies in NOT "moderate" or "centrist"- stop lying and saying it is. It's going along with the far-right-plain & simple

[lyonn]

61. Binden fan here with another opinion

At least Biden will discuss impeachment openly. Have not heard the other candidates discuss it.

The reason I don't agree with the analogy that there are so many other serious and important issues that need taken care of is nothing Is being taken care of. They don't even get 50% of some important votes. Nothing is getting stirred up on the Hill by the Dems.

Since many of the issues being discussed on the Hill are failures, I now wonder what the impeachment process would disrupt besides "Bush". Iran is looming up big time and the repubs act like they still control Congress. Even considering attacking Iran is insanity, yet, it looks like it could happen. Bush is busy, busy, busy being the War President.

[Dr Fate]

81. He also supported the Alito Filibuster,after the fact, once it became impossible.

Seems like Biden likes to take tough "what if" stances when it comes to fights that base wants.

Biden is now "for" the Alito Filibuster now that it is said and done, and claims to be "for" Impeachment investigations somewhere in the distant future -once he knows many in the public will have moved on to something else.

I'm not buying it- BUT- I will concede to your point- at least he is getting "The I Word" into some limited public discourse-at least one obscure message board. I do have to give him some credit for that.

However, if raising awareness is his goal, he could get people talking ON TV about it if he would support it in the now...

Even better, he could merely call for Bush's resignation (that takes no votes, and allows no excuses) and ask why other DEMS refuse to do so.

This would get people talking about impeachment ON TV, not just on DU.

[Pierre.Suave]

60. Everyone in this thread needs to read

Al Gores book, The Assault On Reason.

Seriously.

I dont care what your topic or reason is, nothing will be accomplished until the bush cabal is out of office and/or in jail. NOTHING.

If we do nothing about it now, there will be no republic to save later.

[gateley]

62. You know, you're probably right. I will. It will be maddening, won't it? nt

[Pierre.Suave]

64. I would hope it would not be maddening at all

I would like to hear that you loved it and found it very enlightening.

[gateley]

74. I promise I'll let you know. I just ordered it. And thanks for the nudge --

I've been meaning to get it.

[jillan]

76. I say F* the Dem leadership.

If Pelosi didn't take this off the table and Elmer Fudd didn't follow her around.

At this point - seeing them locked up would be better than nothing at all.

Biden is right - hopefully there are people that are gathering information for after this admin.

[Froward69]

84. I AM

I have a manila folder with plenty of evidence. I am just waiting for him to receive a blowjob. :sarcasm: I am sure I have a long wait.

[eridani]

82. They aren't paralyzed right now? Could have fooled me n/t

[murbley40]

83. kick