Barney Frank: "What troubles me is. . . people on the left who are insisting on impeachment"

[pat_k]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/10/12/MNKESOESB.DTL&type=printable">Gay rights champ Rep. Barney Frank lashes out at critics
Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, October 12, 2007

. . . Frank, at his news conference, reminded his critics that though Democrats won a House majority, they control just 51 seats in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome Republican filibusters that block legislation.

Frank. . . wondered if gay rights leaders had been watching the "Wizard of Oz" too much.

"Nancy Pelosi is not Glenda the good witch," Frank said. "She can't wave her magic wand and make people from all over this country vote however she wants them to vote.

"What troubles me is this notion, and not just on this issue, it's people on the left who are insisting on impeachment, it's on people who say why haven't you stopped the war," Frank said.

Hey Barney! Pelosi doesn't need a magic want to send articles of impeachment to the floor.

None of you need a magic wand to open your mouths and accuse bushncheney of the crimes you admit they are committing. You don't need a magic wand to call on your colleagues impeach and defend the Constitution or refuse and defend the torturers. You don't need a magic wand to call on your fellow Members to get real and put it to a VOTE.

If more than 218 Members of the House vote to impeach, the Senate must pass judgment on the charges. There's no filibustering an impeachment. Unless bushncheney spare them by resigning, each Senator would make a choice: vote to remove and condemn torture or acquit and sanction it.

Their oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend." Impeachment is the ONLY weapon capable of removing the threat. Whether or not the House as a body votes to put the charges before the Senate; whether or not the Senate votes to remove, the word of Congress isn't the last word. WE have the last word when we pass judgment on THEM on Election Day.

By refusing to force Members of Congress to declare themselves they are denying us the opportunity to weigh in on the question of whether or not the United States of America is a War Criminal nation that spies on its own citizens.

The people "insisting on impeachment" aren't the ones living in a fantasy world. Given http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes and morally-confused, mealy-mouthed idiocy we hear from the impeachophobic Dems, I wonder if you've been watching "24" too much.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Three words for many of our "cowardly" Democratic Representatives: FEET OF CLAY

:grr: :thumbsdown:

[CreekDog]

220. I prefer them representing me over you doing it

How many elections have you won?

Did you coordinate the Democrats taking of congress last year?

Didn't think so.

[babylonsister]

2. Thank you! I so recommend this, and shame on Barney. nt

[SaveElmer]

3. Barney right on target as usual...

Cuts through the bullshit and gets to the truth for the matter!!!

[ShortnFiery]

4. "truth for the matter!!!" = We, in the Investor Classes, love that Status Quo.

:crazy: :thumbsdown:

[Richardo]

7. Because Barney Frank = well-known right wing shill, right?

:crazy:

I'm drowning in the stupid. Help.

[...of J.Temperance]

37. Barney Frank/Fred Thompson 2008!

Unless Newt Gingrich is available obviously....



:sarcasm:

[japple]

166. Hey, "FRED & BARNEY!!!!" That's got quite a ring to it.

Wonder where I've heard that before.

[L0oniX]

195. LOL

[dugggy]

219. LOL n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

46. Hey ain't really gay.

I asked him the all telling "What was the name of Barbra Streisand's second album" question .... just stood there with a blank look on his face.

Barney Frank - Fox News Lover

[...of J.Temperance]

58. Yeah I heard he couldn't

Sing any of the songs from "South Pacific" either ;)

He AIN'T gay!

[ronnykmarshall]

60. He ain't!

He ain't I tells ya!

I see it!

[...of J.Temperance]

69. Yeah, Recall Barney Frank

Recall Election....dammit, the people in his Massachucetts Congressional District were LIED to!

He AIN'T gay, they voted for him because they THOUGHT he was gay!

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

124. Yes, we need to replace a number of incumbents with new anti-war democrats

with SPINES. Gee, I don't think this is humorous.

That is, if our representatives refuse to do their DAMN jobs, then despite a positive history, it may be time for Barney Frank, et. al., to move on and make room for NEW BLOOD? :thumbsup:

[pampango]

131. RW shill - that's all you have?

Let's face it. Barney is a corporate apologist, DLC shill (much worse than being a RW shill) and, perhaps, even a fascist (though DU may be saving that one for the next time he strays from the path). :crazy:

It seems that one can go from LW hero at DU speaking truth to power to an apologist/shill/fascist in a heartbeat . It happened to Kennedy during the immigration debate when he went from being a liberal icon to a corporate apologist and BushCo shill.

It seems to be a rarity here that you hear anyone say that they reconsidered an position after someone they had previously respected and praised came out with a statement that was at odds with their own position. Are Kennedy and Frank perfect? Hardly, but at times it seems that their years of liberal caring count for nothing. They get defamed as quickly as any repub politician, regardless of what they have done in the past.

[Richardo]

137. I'm impressed - you used almost every tired cliche there is...

Including the always tiresome 'truth to power'. :thumbsup:

Look: Politics is not religion, and despite what you seem to think, there is no catechism for the Church of the Unsullied Liberal. Politics is the art and practice of expediency - to get most, or at least some, of what your consituents, and the country, need.

So spare us the dogmatic drivel.

[pampango]

138. Thanks, but it seems that I should have included the sarcasm tag.

The point of my post was to throw in every tired cliche I could come up with on short notice. I am not sure if "shill", "apologist" (corporate, Bush, RW), or "truth to power" win the tiresome cliche award, but they are all in contention. At times is seems that, when all else fails, throw a good cliche at the person you are deriding or arguing with.

I too get tired of the labels thrown around here, especially when they are targeted at people who have proven themselves over decades to be true liberals and progressives. We obviously have the right to disagree with our "heroes" from time to time, but we don't have start calling them names every time they stray from our perception of the straight and narrow.

(It would seem that subtle sarcasm is not a strength in my writing style. I will try to remember that in the future. It's just that I see the sarcasm tag overused and try to avoid it, as much as I can.) ;)

[Richardo]

139. Wow. I missed that - which goes to show what I've come to expect from this place.

Kudos! :patriot:

No worries - I'll cut and paste my little scolding on the next poster who actually means it, there are several in this thread alone.

...and please, do not stoop to using the sarcasm tag - it's the tool of the unskilled, and that's not you.

[redqueen]

245. One does not need the sarcasm tag

when one's last two paragraphs make the previous sarcasm crystal clear.

[cosmicdot]

151. 'the art of persuasion' is what my Poli Sci 101 book taught

politics is the art of persuasion ...

of course, that was circa 1970, and everything, I suspect, changed after Reagan and the era of New Democrats

Persuade constituents for a case of impeachment vs. not persuading. Leading or not leading?


'Ask not what your country can do for you' ... not, 'give me your best shot' or 'I'll take what I can get'.

[CreekDog]

226. How many House Democratic majorities have you produced?

I think I'll trust Frank on the politics of this issue, he knows a tad bit more about that than you.

[Auntie Bush]

203. It's getting pretty easy around here to not like liberals.

They are so fickle and hate someone or everyone at one time or another. Don't think I like/respect people like that.

[CreekDog]

224. I agree, good post

But don't forget, usually when they start attacking venerable Democrats, they have to lie to make their case which is what they've done when they called him various names that don't reflect his record or ideology.

[CreekDog]

222. I'm trying to help :)

This thread is flypaper to stupid.

[CreekDog]

221. Barney Frank friend of the investor classes?

You're a dunce. You do not have a shred of intelligence to speak about Barney Frank's record or political stands because you have gotten this one so utterly wrong.

Go read a little about the man and when you are ready to stop lying about him, come back and post.

[ronnykmarshall]

44. Barney???

Do you wonder why Bush named his dog "Barney"?

Now we all know.

Barney Frank - Prawn of the Bush administratiom.

[HughMoran]

174. Lol! Say one thing you disagree with - OMG that Dem is a Bushie!!!!!!!!!!111

Folks here are fucking insane out of their minds sometimes. Pathetic!

[BootinUp]

181. Pretty sure

she was being highly sarcastic there.

[HughMoran]

173. Don't say practical things that make sense

You have to be on-board or you are one of them thar Nazi folks.

[fedupfisherman]

216. Stop funding for the war

Oh we can't do that!

[calteacherguy]

5. Right on target, Barney! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Holding People Accountable Is A Bad Idea, Eh?

Oh, and he has the ability to launch nukes anytime.

I know, I know - whatever.

[BootinUp]

114. Living up to a Campaign Pledge is a Bad Idea, Eh?

What makes you think he wants to launch nukes? Are you one of those 911 conspiracy theorists?

The Dems in the Red States and purple states would like to increase their numbers in '08. Nancy and Harry and the next Dem President would like it to. Maybe your state can secede from the Union and you can have a government that is less diverse in representation and opinion.

No, you want them to violate the no impeach pledge from '06, and destroy any chance of holding or increasing support in non-blue states. And all for an impeachment that the Senate would never convict for.

[pat_k]

275. When the pledge violates their Congressional oath, "living up to it" . . .

. . . is not just a "bad idea," it is a reprehenisble dereliction of duty.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3614658

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

270. Holding OUR people accountable for things they can't do IS a bad idea.

That's the point.

[pat_k]

272. Good thing we're holding them accountable for what they CAN do.

Nobody has called on them to do ANYTHING they "can't do."

Our so-called leaders publicly complain that the bushncheney White House has declared itself above all law. They complain that bushncheney have turned Americans into torturers that spy on their fellow citizens. They describe intolerable violations of the Constituion.

And then they tell us "We cannot actually accuse/impeach them!! Are you kidding? What's wrong with you? Leave us Alone already!"

We are pointing out little things like:

None of you need a magic wand to open your mouths and accuse bushncheney of the crimes you admit they are committing. You don't need a magic wand to call on your colleagues impeach and defend the Constitution or refuse and defend the torturers. You don't need a magic wand to call on your fellow Members to get real and put it to a VOTE.
--from Original Post

They do not swear and oath to "support and defend the homeland" or "the USA" or "America" or "the nation." They swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Without the Constitution -- our common contract, amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect -- we are nothing. When our common contract is broken, there is no true America to "support and defend."

Their oath is not an oath to win; it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend." Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to enforce the Constitution when constitut8ional officers in the executive or judiciary violate the terms. Their refusal to take up that weapon and fight is a violation of their oath.

It couldn't be simpler.

Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. (With the emphasis on "open.")

When squatters move in, it is the property owner's responsibility to commence eviction proceedings. If the property owner fails to serve notice for long enough, squatters claim title, and Poof! -- the property owner isn't the property owner anymore.

We the People "own" the nation. Members of Congress, who we empowered and charged with the duty of evicting (impeaching) such trespassers, are refusing to act. They are allowing Bush and Cheney to claim "ownership" of unconstitutional power under the old adage, "possession is 9/10ths of the law." (An adage that is grounded in common law.)

Surrendering your property to squatters without a fight is insanity, but that insanity doesn't compare to the magnitude of the insanity of surrendering a nation without a fight. But that is precisely what Members of Congress are doing when they say that the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney can't, won't, or shouldn't happen.

We are not saying "you must remove the violators."

We are saying "You are sworn to fight to impeach and remove the violators."

We are saying "Choose: Fight or be complicit in war crimes."

We are saying "Demand impeachment now. Break the bonds of complicity. Take the first step on the road to redemption."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

273. Running at full speed into a garage door is idiocy.

I would certainly hope our elected officials are smarter than that.

[pat_k]

274. Failing to impeach is the WORST possible outcome.

First you claim they "can't do it." (And that we shouldn't be asking them to do something they "can't do.")

Now assert that impeachment will end with a "crash" of some sort, but you fail to describe the "terrible thing" that would result. What do you fear?

If the "crash" you fear is "inevitable failure" (e.g., more than 218 vote against impeachment in the House or more than 33 vote against removal), you can stop worrying. Victory is not only possible, it may be probable. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3614186">Post #269). And, besides, the moral and political benefits of the fight itself, whether or not it results in removal/resignation, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3610235">outwiegh all of the feared consequences we hear from the so-called "leadership."

With their refusal to fight for impeachment the Democatic caucus is running headlong into complicity with War Crimes. Just as did when they ran headlong into disaster in 2002 when the leadership refused to fight the Authorizations to Use Military Force.

The ones who listened to our calls to "fight!" in 2002 have reaped the moral and political benefits of breaking their bonds of complicity with the horror of the criminal war of aggression. Things didn't pan out so well for Daschle and other appeasers in the leadership who "knew" it would be "disastrous" to oppose Bush.

And, back in 1986, those of us who were fighting to see Reagan and 41 impeached were told "We'll lose the White House." We were told "Just sit back, the Republicans will destroy themselves."

We all know how that panned out.

The nation may not survive another such devastating failure to stand and fight for our sacred principles.

Win or lose, the fight to impeach sets us on the path to ultimate redemption. The fight for impeachment is empowering and engaging anti-fascists. If our leaders got in front of the parade we've started, instead of telling us to go home and leave them alone, they could galvanize Americans in a fight for the Constitutiona and the People Government unlike anything we have seen before.

By refusing to impeach, they alienate anti-fascists and give aid and comfort to the fascists. A deadly combination.

It's not just moral insanity. It is political insanity.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Barney Was for It Before He Was Against It

Barney's my rep, and I generally like him, but lately he's been pissing me off.

Two years ago, he was FOR impeachment:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/19/101607.shtml

Last year I was at a local party and my buddy asked someone else about impeachment. Barney overheard, and broke in to rip my buddy a new orifice, saying impeachment was the worst thing the Dems could possibly do.

What's up with that?

[ronnykmarshall]

48. Run, Manny RUN!

Kick that DINO out of office.

Barney Frank - Enemy of The People.

[MannyGoldstein]

96. Sorry - I'm Not Eccentric Enough

This district loves eccentrics. I'm way too white, heterosexual, and otherwise boring.

[CreekDog]

228. Two years, duh, is the difference

When you could impeach, you would have removed him for a substantial part of his term, now we know there aren't the votes and if there were, it's several months at the most he could be removed from office.

Two years braniac, two years!

[bluestateguy]

8. Impeachment and conviction will fail and waste endless time in the end

Contrary to what many here believe, there is not much of a groundswell for impeachment at all, outside of Berkeley coffeehouses and websites like this one.

And while it was all going on, the domestic and foreign policy agenda would completely stall.

The votes are not likely there in the House. Too many Democrats from red districts that would simply not support that course of action because their constituents would not support it. And if we did somehow clear that hurdle, the Senate would be impossible.

But I'll make you a deal. If you can tell me where the 67 Senate votes will come from for conviction, I'll support pursuing impeachment.

[SaveElmer]

12. Impeachment would be a Godsend...

For the Republicans...they are salivating at the possibility that the Democrats in Congress would actually be stupid enough to pursue such a course...

[...of J.Temperance]

19. It would guarantee the 2008 Presidential Election goes to the GOP

An Impeachment drive that was doomed to failure, would only result in whoever the GOP choose as their 2008 Presidential candidate would win the election.

That helps the Democratic Party how?

[SaveElmer]

20. "That helps the Democratic Party how?"

Some don't care...

[...of J.Temperance]

21. I know, sad isn't it?

That the Democratic Party doing something that would result in total electoral suicide....just doesn't matter to some people.

No doubt Barney Frank will now be accused of being a "neo-Con" or something :eyes:

[SaveElmer]

22. If the past is any guide...

Yes he will be...

[...of J.Temperance]

24. *Sigh*

Of course Barney will join Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer then....I saw the other day where they were now put into the "neo-Con" camp as well.

Completely ridiculous!

[sufrommich]

129. Who isn't in the neocon camp according

to some here? I've seen many so many good Dems dragged through the shit at DU lately and for what purpose? I imagine we get lots of dems coming here for the first time during the election process,imagine their disgust when reading shit like this.Wonder how long they hang around.

[TwilightZone]

23. Well, you're close....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3605031

[...of J.Temperance]

27. Oh heck

Now see, NOBODY from the DLC EVEN informed me that Barney Frank had even joined the DLC....I learn something new everyday it seems!

:rofl:

[TwilightZone]

31. I think that thread title should win some kind of award.

Not sure what, exactly.

[...of J.Temperance]

35. Lol!

Yeah I know what you mean.

[denem]

218. Prime Minister Tojo was DLC

Every Republican representative State and Federal, have submitted applications.

[CreekDog]

229. I got called a DLC'er on DU not long ago

And I didn't even pay the membership fee. I guess it was an honorary membership bestowed upon me by fellow DU'ers.

The "honor" was given to me because I defended Pelosi or Clinton or somebody, I forget.

[babylonsister]

28. BULLSHIT. Aware Americans are crying for a change and are pissed off

that we are 'still' dealing with this pissant and Darth controlling everything when they have no business doing so.

Tell me; which rethug will get the nomination? They ALL SUCK for different reasons.

[...of J.Temperance]

38. The change is called the 2008 Presidential Election

Too near the 2008 Election to risk RUINING the election, by launching an Impeachment drive that's going to fail.

Tell me, where exactly are the Democrats going to get 67 Senate votes from....which Republican Senators can YOU see voting Yes to Impeach George W. Bush?

I can't see ANY myself and that means an Impeachment drive would fail 100%

[babylonsister]

56. 67? That's not true...

And besides, what happened to conviction? Isn't our constitution and losing this loser worth fighting for? There are so many things he did wrong and illegally, starting with 2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7raAL3Wld0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eworkingassetsblog%2Ecom%2F2007%2F09%2Fthe%5Finnocent%5Fbystander%5Ffable%5Fg%2Ehtml

[...of J.Temperance]

62. You need TWO THIRDS of the votes

In The Senate to Impeach successfully.

[SaveElmer]

73. Interesting some of those crying the loudest for impeachment...

Don't even know what is involved...

A majority of the House to impeach (which they would not get)

And 2/3 of the Senate for conviction (which they definitely will not get)

And the whole process takes a year or more anyway...by which time Bush will be gone...replaced by another Republican if Democrats are moronic enough to go down this path...

And when you ask specifically which 17 Senate Republicans they suppose will vote to convict...you get nothin...

This is a latte liberal issue that has little or no resonance in the country...seems to me Barney Frank is in better touch of reality than those decrying his insulation from it...

[...of J.Temperance]

77. Thank you :)

Yes a Two Thirds majority is needed for a successful Impeachment....and the entire process would take more than a year, by which time George W. Bush will have scooted off to some protected Gated Community and thus won't be in the WH no more.

I noticed that crickets were chirping when I asked which Republicans they thought would vote to Impeach Bush, and 17 is a lot let's face it, it ain't happening as we know.

I'm impressed that Barney Frank seems to realize all of this.


On Edit: Added word

[babylonsister]

74. Well, just maybe, the asshole deserves to be 'outed' finally. I don't know.

I would just like to see all (I know that will never happen in my lifetime) his/their lies exposed and for Americans to really get a clue about what has been going on. It's way worse than Watergate, and we're hesitating? They're shy because of Clinton? Blow jobs outrule dead bodies? I am sick of this man and his cohorts getting away with what they're doing.

[...of J.Temperance]

79. I understand your frustration

And President Clinton shouldn't have been Impeached, for what was a private and personal issue.

Blow-job's DON'T outweigh dead bodies, nobody would think that they did....but the reality is, we DON'T have the votes, we DON'T have a Two Thirds majority in the Senate, which means any Impeachment drive would be doomed to failure.

[SaveElmer]

86. The best way to resolve this...

Is to put a major league whoopin on them 1 year from now...and things are shaping up in our favor...

Impeachment puts that in jeopardy...plain and simple...

[...of J.Temperance]

90. Completely agree with you

I know we're going to win in 2008, I can feel it....and I don't want anything putting that at risk, and an Impeachment drive that is doomed to failure, TOTALLY puts 2008 in jeopardy.

[kath]

110. Did the Dems have a 2/3 majority during Watergate?

And Bushco's crimes are WAY worse than Watergate.

[...of J.Temperance]

113. The Republicans all but ABANDONED Nixon during Watergate

Perhaps you need to refresh your reading over the Watergate situation?

Richard Nixon would have been successfully Impeached if he hadn't of resigned, because the majority of Republican's in the Senate ABANDONED him and told him he HAD to go.

Don't you see the difference between Watergate and now?

The Democrats need SEVENTEEN Republican Senator's to vote for Impeachment of Bush, they need those 17 because it requires a TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY to Impeach and REMOVE from OFFICE the occupant of the WH.

Unlike with Nixon and Watergate....the majority of Republican Senators HAVEN'T ABANDONED Bush....17 Republican Senators HAVEN'T even ABANDONED Bush, so how the heck could Bush be successfully Impeached?

Can you do math? You find me the 67 Senate votes out of the EXISTING Senate votes we have amongst Democratic Senators....FIND the names of 17 Republican Senators who'd vote to Impeach Bush, and when you do, post the names.

Bottom line: Watergate, Republican's en masse abandoned Nixon.

Now 2007: Republican's haven't abandoned Bush to point where they'd vote to Impeach him.

The Democratic majority in the Senate is how many? Right, they need ANOTHER 17 VOTES on top of that....they get them from where and whom exactly?


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[...of J.Temperance]

115. I should also add

That the reason why President Bill Clinton DIDN'T get Impeached and removed from office by the Republican's in the Senate, is for the SAME reasons....the Republican's couldn't get the two-thirds majority, the 67 votes required.

Thankfully a handful of Republican Senators, Chaffee, Collins, Snowe and I can't remember the other ones, they voted with the Democrats NOT to Impeach and remove from office.

One of the reasons why I'd actually like Hillary to be elected President, is that it'd TOTALLY drive the frothing-at-the-mouth Clinton Haters COMPLETELY off the edge, they'd go insane.

[kath]

116. And Clinton's "crimes" were at the same level as Bushco's. Yeah. RIGHT.

[BootinUp]

117. The repukes lost seats by over reaching

on the impeachment, is that what you would like the Dems to do? For nothing of course since the conviction is completely out of reach.

[...of J.Temperance]

121. My thoughts are

Yes that's what they'd LIKE them to do, they must want that.

[...of J.Temperance]

118. You chose to IGNORE my Republican's ABANDONED Nixon post huh?

Why? Because it was telling you ACTUAL facts that you didn't want to hear, because they DIDN'T tell you what you wanted to hear?

You said "Did the Democrats need a Two-Thirds majority during Watergate?"

I responded with common sense, actual facts and was totally logical.


For your "And Clinton's crimes were at the same level as Bushco's? Yeah. Right."

Are you able to read or do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? Did you EVEN READ my post # 79 in this thread? IF you had of done, then you wouldn't have made such a silly remark to me like:

"And Clinton's crimes were at the same level as Bushco's? Yeah. Right."

Now would you? Because I ALREADY addressed that in post # 79.

[dugggy]

223. The blue dress was the "evidence"

that Bill lied about his relationship in a court of law,
as a witness in a sexual harrasment suit filed by Paula Jones.
Bill made a bad judgement call in denying the affair, all he
had to do was admit it and people would have forgiven him
instantly. Paula was willing to settle for a nominal amount.

[puebloknot]

125. Bill Clinton *was* impeached. He was acquitted in the Senate.

Not just a matter of semantics. A lot of people claim Clinton was never impeached because they know he was not removed from office.

[CreekDog]

233. They had Republican votes for Impeachment then

They don't have those votes now.

You are not telling the full truth in your post and you are misleading people into thinking something that isn't true.

[onenote]

250. the vote to start the impeachment inquiry against Nixon was 410-4

You think that sort of bipartisan vote would happen now? I'd be careful about drawing comparisons.

[Bjorn Against]

162. Neither did the Republicans when they went after Clinton...

But that didn't stop them from going after him now did it? What Bush did is FAR more serious than anything Clinton ever did, and we need accountability. Impeachment hearings would be a start to bringing about that accountability. Even if we don't succeed in removing him from office we can at least lay the groundwork so that when he does leave office he will face accountability for his crimes.

[onenote]

251. and 31 Democrats supported starting the impeachment inquiry against Clinton

You think that there is that level of bipartisan support for the impeachment process today?

[pat_k]

171. "Don't have the votes" my ass.

All you have to do is think for two minutes about the choice impeachment forces Members of Congress to make.

They can oppose impeachment (House) removal (Senate) and

• "Stand with" the Pariah in Chief and his puppet master -- the pair that Republicans are practically scrambling over each other to "distance" themselves from.



• Defend the Unconstitutional, Un-Americans, and patently absurd claim that our Constitution gives the Office of the President the "right" to violate law by fiat, as long as they claim they are doing it to "protect us."



• Tell the American public that they didn't mean it when they voted for McCain's anti-torture amendment (passed 90-9). That they were happy Bush ordered the various agencies to continue to kidnap, secretly and indefinitely hold, and torture anyone Bush arbitrarily labels "enemy combatant, in direct violation of both the existing law and the new law. (The Geneva conventions are part of U.S. Code so when they broke Geneva, they break our laws.)



• Dfend Bush's claim that his scribble next to McCain's amendment, and about a thousand others, actually nullifies/modifies the provision. That is, they would have to defend Bush's "right" to render Congress powerless. (Render THEM, the Senate, with their big fat egos, powerless).



• Take a public position that would hand all these fascist powers to unitary executive Hillary, or Obama, or whoever.

OR they can support impeachment/removal and . .

• Reject the fascist fantasies invoked by both Bush and Cheney by voting "guilty."

Given that choice, Do you actually believe it's likely that more than 218 Members of the House would vote against Articles of Impeachment? If the House voted out Articles, do you actually believe with 100% certainty that more than 34 Senators would opt for the first option?

Sure, Republicans would loathe having to cast a vote that would hand the keys to the WH to Pelosi, but even that may not outweigh their instinct for self-preservation. Of course, given the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" corner they'd find themselves in, the MOST LIKELY outcome would be Republican leaders marching over to the White House in mass to force Bush and Cheney to resign and hand the keys to a successor the House and Senate agree to immediately confirm. {I figure Danforth, but that just a guess.}

[BootinUp]

189. What Republican party have you been watching?

Do you live in America or are you talking about some other country? There is no way in hell 17 Republican Senators will vote for removal. Period. Not without much much more in illegal activities that can be proved beyond a doubt. As you know the Administration has been able to block access to much information successfully. And any effort to force them to reveal it would take months and months and months. So really there is not much chance to change the status quo.

[pat_k]

210. Since bushncheney commit their crimes in plain sight. . .

. . .their intolerable violations HAVE "been proved beyond all doubt." (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/25">They hand us another "smoking gun" every time they assert "unitary authoritarian power")

That's the point. Impeachment forces Members of Congress to unequivocally condemn or sanction those crimes ON THE RECORD. (Or to do everything in their power to escape the vote by forcing bushncheney to resign.)

Charge bushncheney for torturing and Members of Congress will be forced join the accusers or defend with absurdities like:

• "The laws we pass don't apply to the person charged with executing those laws."
• "Bush declared himself immune from McCain's anti-torture amendment in a signing statement, so it's ok by us that he blatantly violates it."
• "Yeah, 90 Senators voted for McCain's anti-torture amendment, but they/we really didn't mean it."
• "Ok. So they lied to us and didn't actually close Cheney's http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001631.php">cloak and dagger dungeons. It's ok by us that they've made the USA a war criminal nation."
• "waterboarding doesn't violate our commitment under Geneva to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their persons." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881_pf.html">War Crimes and the White House)
• "Sure the Supreme Court ruled that Geneva applied to Gitmo, and therefore that bushncheney had already committed three years of war crimes, but they told us they stopped their violations. Opps. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html">Turns out they didn't. Oh well.

The crimes are so blatant that the ONLY thing protecting them at the moment is the fact that Congress refuses to impeach. Their refusal allows the Republicans to say "The White House can't be violating the Constitution or law. If they were, the Democratic leadership would certainly be impeaching."

[dugggy]

225. Obviously you are smarter than all our dem leaders!

Atleast in your own mind!!

[pat_k]

243. Another irrelevant snipe that evades the points of the case..

At least CreekDog made a point in his response to poat http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3607151">#171 -- it failed to directly address to the points/question, but at least it wasn't completely irrelevant.

[CreekDog]

234. Only 1/2 the Republicans need to vote against impeachment

For it to be a failure.

The wackiest of the wacky can simply vote against impeachment and it fails.

you think the Idaho Republicans will vote for impeachment? What about Roberts of Kansas, Inhofe in Oklahoma? There are enough Republicans like that in the Senate to keep impeachment from happening. Sheesh.

[pat_k]

242. 1) Evades the questions/points, 2) Win or lose, impeachment is the . . .

. . .http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3610235">only fight worth fighting.

Certainly the wackiest of the wacky may happily defend the indefensible. Naming a handful that might fall into that camp doesn't refute the possibility that, if the House votes out articles, fewer than 34 Senators would be willing to do so. It doesn't address the stark choice Republicans would be forced to face. It doesn't deal with the possibility, perhaps even probability, that Republicans would attempt to escape the "damned if you do; damned if you don't" choice by forcing bushncheney to resign in order to keep the White House in Republican hands.

Further, even if those predicting inevitable failure are indeed soothsayers who can see how events will play out in a future that cannot exist unless Congress actually takes up the fight to impeach, outcome expectations are irrelevant to

• the question of whether or not the regime admits (and "defends") their actions; that all that is left is to say NO. (No "investigation" required.)


• the question of whether or not impeachment is a moral imperative demanded by the oath;


• the question of whether or not failing to impeach gives bushncheney cover by allowing them to claim "We're not violating the Constitution; if we were, the Democrats would surely impeach us";


• the question of whether or not the political and moral risks of failing to impeach, even if the battle is lost, could be far greater than the risks they fear;


• the question of whether or not the potential moral and political benefits of impeachment could far outweigh the any potential benefits of refusing to impeach. (To date, I haven't seen anything on the "benefits of refusing" side; only the "bad things" they believe they escape.);


• the question of whether or not the fight to impeach is an unprecedented opportunity to channel the public's anger at bushncheney and engage many who have been silenced by the endless declarations of powerlessness raining down on them from the so-called Congressional "leadership."

Many, including myself, make the case that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=34242&mesg_id=35095">impeachment IS not only the RIGHT thing to do; it is the WINNING thing to do. Others have systematically refuted the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes/excuses for failing to impeach. The most frequent response to the case for impeachment is some form of "impeachment=political doom." You may or may not subscribe to that belief, but I have yet to see a legitimate case grounded in facts, logical arguments, and reasonable assumption that justifies the certainty with which that belief is asserted. I have yet to see a direct response that refutes the case for impeachment or addresses the four questions that constitute a complete cost-benefit analysis (i.e., benefits of action; risks of action; benefits of inaction; risks of inaction.)

[CreekDog]

246. You mean "attempting to impeach" is worth doing?

You are saying it is worth doing even if:

1) it fails
2) it scuttles other leglislation
3) it makes 2008 all about Bush v. Impeachment instead of the Dem nominee against the Republican nominee
4) even if it succeeds, Bush would serve all but 3-5 months at most of his term. (impeachment takes a while --Clinton's took almost a year)

And 3 of those things happen whether or not it succeeds.

[pat_k]

248. Absolutely. . .

Your points do not challenge the moral imperative, the potential political benefits of impeachment, or the risks of failing to impeach.

Regarding (1)
This absolute assertion, without a single supporting fact, logical argument, or reasonable assumption cited to back it up, is not a challenge to the case that victory -- removal or resignation -- is not only possible, it could be probable.

And BTW, back on 9/25 Rep. Jane Harman -- not exactly a maverick -- made a statement that contradicts the notion that failure is inevitable. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20993592/">transcript

Harman: I actually find that quite incredible, given the fact that, at will over most of the last five or six years, the administration hasn‘t followed FISA
or all the FISA. They admit that. . .

What‘s broken is the view of executive power that some hold in the administration. They claim it trumps all laws and our Constitution. And I can‘t believe that anyone around here would be so short-sighted as to buy that. . .,

From where Rep. Harman sits, Republican Members of Congress are among the "anyones" who are "around here." She is effectively saying that she "can't believe" they'd actually defend the indefensible if pressed to do so. Impeaching bushnchcney for claiming they can torture because executive power trumps all law (or a variation on that theme) is the only thing that can actually "press them" by forcing an "up or down vote" on the matter.

Regarding (2)
So what? No "other priorities" are being tangibly advanced anyway. Everything is hostage to the monarchical regime. Yes, even cutting funds for the war. Yes, even contempt charges. And even if they managed to pass something that was not a gutted compromise, what is gained by passing legislation for bushncheney to violate or claim to be immune from via signing statement? What is gained by passing legislation as the White House continues to gut the institutions charged with execution/enforcement? What is gained by feeding the fantasy that everything is "business as usual"?

Regaring (3)
Making 2008 "all about impeachment" is perhaps the BEST thing the Democrats could possibly do for the Party. The "quick list" (points that are covered in more detail in posts I reference):

• The party’s historical "weakness" is what got us into this mess. It pervades the electorate’s view on all other issues. A display of resolve now could erase decades of damage.


• Impeachment forces a comprehensive "up or down vote." It can force Republicans to go on record defending the worst of the recent past with the maximum public attention.


• The polls show independents’ support for impeachment to be high. Now is the time to lock in that swing vote for the foreseeable future.

Regarding (4)
There is no "time issue" involved. The regime admits, and "defends," their actions -- defenses that even a middle-of-the-roader like Rep. Harman can't believe anyone would buy. All that is left is to say NO. All that is required is the will to act. No "investigation" required. And even an impeachment vote on the last day would be a mark for history -- a declaration that We the People unequivocally reject bushncheney-ism; That we refuse to remain a war criminal nation that spies on its own citizens.

Whatever the vote count, each and every Member who votes to impeach/convict breaks the bonds of complicity in the war crimes committed the name of the USA. Just as each and every Member who voted against the Authorization to Use Military broke the bonds of complicity with the criminal war of aggression.

And each and every Member who votes down the bill of impeachment will expose themselves as enemies of the Constitution. The people then get what they deserve -- the right to stand in judgment of their actions with their votes.

Regarding your conclusion: "And 3 of those things happen whether or not it succeeds."

(1) Sure, one or more of your points could "happen," but it's not a certainty.
(2) Whether or not they "happen," none of the points serve as counter-argument to the the arguments for impeachment.
(3) None of the points constitutes a direct response to the questions I pose.

[onenote]

252. You don't seem to understand the process

In order to commence the impeachment process, the first step is for the entire House to vote on a resolution to direct the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry (hearings etc) and report back on whether or articles of impeachment should be considered by the House. In other words, the first vote takes place before any evidence is laid out through hearings etc. Both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes started with such resolutions and in each instance the resolution received bipartisan support. THere is no sign of any bipartisan support for a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to start an impeachment inquiry. Because of that, it is a virtual certainty that such a resolution would be defeated due to the defection of more than enough blue dog/moderate/swing district Democrats.

So what you end up with is a barely debated resolution going down to defeat, giving a boost to the repubs.

[pat_k]

260. The case couldn't be simpler. . .

And even a middle-of-the-roader like Rep. Jane Harman agrees. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20993592/">transcript)

Harman: I actually find that quite incredible, given the fact that, at will over most of the last five or six years, the administration hasn‘t followed FISA
or all the FISA. They admit that. . .

What‘s broken is the view of executive power that some hold in the administration. They claim it trumps all laws and our Constitution. And I can‘t believe that anyone around here would be so short-sighted as to buy that. . .,

From where Rep. Harman sits, Republican Members of Congress are among the "anyones" who are "around here." She is effectively saying that she "can't believe" they'd actually defend the indefensible if pressed to do so.

Introducing Articles of impeachment against bushnchcney for claiming they can torture because executive power trumps all law (or a variation on that theme) is the only thing that can actually "press them" by forcing an "up or down vote" on the matter. All that is required is the will to take it up.

There is no "time issue" involved. The regime admits, and "defends," their actions -- defenses that are patently absurd. There is no "cover-up" to uncover. No investigation required. All that is left is to say NO. All that is required is the will to act.

There is no lengthy or complex set of steps that must be followed. The House as a body can require as many or as few steps as they deem necessary under House rules. Alhthough it is likely that at least a few Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would refuse to defend the indefensibe and vote Yea, they don't actually need any Republican votes to send a bill of impeachment to the floor. If they choose, the leadership could even move the bill directly to the floor.

And if it goes to the Senate, the Senate defines the steps they require within the bounds defined by the Constituion and Senate Rules (e.g., Chief Justice presides, but his role is limited to ensuring that the rules the Senate has established for the trial are adheared to.)

The claim that we can't or shouldn't impeach because it will take "too long" is not a legitimate excuse for dereliction of duty. Even an impeachment vote on the last day is a mark for history. Whatever the vote count, each and every Member who votes to impeach/convict breaks the bonds of complicity in the war crimes committed the name of the USA. Just as each and every Member who voted against the Authorization to Use Military broke the bonds of complicity with the criminal war of aggression.

And each and every Member who votes down the bill of impeachment will expose themselves as enemies of the Constitution. The people then get what they deserve -- the right to stand in judgment of their actions at the polls.

I can only assume that your conclusion that I don't understand the process is based on ignorance of my posts on the matter over the past years.

[onenote]

261. I'll try again: there won't be a vote in the House on impeachment

The vote would be on whether to authorize and direct the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry. There will be no televised hearings before that vote, not even much of a debate. It will lose. And it will lose on a vote in which the "bipartisan" side is the side opposing the resolution. There will be no adverse consequences for any of the members that vote against it.

[pat_k]

263. A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege. . .

Excerpts from http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/houserules.pdf

"A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business. . . It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege."

"A resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged."

While there are "various methods of setting an impeachment in motion" a "direct proposition" is made "by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate" (Or, as Cynthia McKinney put it "The act of writing up Articles of Impeachment is not difficult. You just write them on a piece of paper." -http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0111.html">ref)

Although the House "may refrain from ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a committee" (the sequence of events you cite), "the House has at times ordered an investigation at once."

In other words, there is nothing to stop them from choosing to initiate an immediate "investigation." Since bushncheney admit their violations and have already publicly offerred their absurd defense, there is nothing to stop the investigating committee -- whether that be the judiciary committee or a select committee -- from immediately recommending impeachment on the charges to the House.

As I said, all that is required is the political will to act.

Re: your assertion that the House would vote against initiating in inquiry if the process followed the sequence you cote. You have failed to provide any evidence that would justify your absolute certainty.

[onenote]

265. the fact that its a question of high privilege doesn't change a thing

Even the language that you quote doesn't help: You are right that nothing stops the House from "choosing" to initiate an immediate investigation. But making that choice requires the House to vote to initiate the investigation...basically the first step I identified. Can I state with absolute certainty that the House would not vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry if the question was put before them? No, but I think I can safely say that outcome is far, far, far more likely than a vote to commence such an inquiry. On what do I base this? Well, for starters, any number of votes taken in the House in the past 10 months in which more than enough blue dog and moderate Democrats have sided with repubs against a majority of Dems to defeat legislation that was critical of and/or opposed chimpy or to pass legislation that chimpy wanted over the objections of a majority of Democrats (such a war funding, FISA, etc.)

So, unless there is some reason to think that a bunch of moderate/conservate Democrats are suddenly going to support a purely partisan impeachment inquiry resolution against the unified opposition of the repubs, I think its a pretty safe bet that any effort to start an impeachment investigation is doomed to fail at the moment.

[pat_k]

266. Yes, it does.

First, not that it matters to the case that impeachment is not only the RIGHT thing to do; it is the WINNING thing to do, but it doesn't require a floor vote to refer for "investigation." Whether to refer directly or put it to a vote is within the control of the Speaker of the House.

Second, the fact that a direct proposal to impeach is a question of high priviledge does make a difference. A member submitting a privileged resolution, memorial or motion proposing impeachment is entitled to recognition for one hour in which to debate it. A member recognized to present a privileged resolution may not be taken from the floor by a motion to refer. IMPEACHMENT: Selected Materials p. 769 (Section 468). In order to secure this privilege of debate, however, the proposal must be put in writing and submitted to the Clerk of the House. Id. at pp. 770-71 (Section 470).

It is possible that such a resolution could be called up for an immediate vote; but that option appears to be within the control of the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader. See Zeifman, Without Honor: The Impeachment of Richard Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot pp. 46-47 (1995).

The steps required to deal with a restolution to imepach are largely under the control of the Speaker of the House. Currently Pelosi is exerting power to keep impeachment "off the table." There is nothing to stop her from acting to put it in motion tomorrow. She can make it s straightforward or she could derail it.

None of this addresses my post, which points out that a vote on a bill of impeachment against bushncheney for their unconstitutional claims to absolute power to torture and spy -- whether that vote is in committee or on the floor -- forces Members of Congress make a choice: support impeachment/removal, defend the indefensible, or attempt to escape having to go on the record by pressuring bushncheney to resign. I make the case that it is by no means certain that a sufficient number will be willing to defend the indefensible. This discussion of process does mpt touch on the elements of that case. Nor does it touch on the moral imperatives, potential political benefits of impeachment, or the risk of failing to impeach.

[onenote]

267. it really doesn't make any difference

By your own admission, its up to the Chair -- meaning the Speaker -- to decide how to handle an impeachment resolution proferred as a question of privilege. There is nothing that, as a practical matter, that could be done to stop Pelosi from simply referring the resolution to committee.If challenged, the Parliamentarian could be consulted who could conclude that there is precedent for referring a privileged resolution to committee or even that the question of privilege was not properly raised. If that ruling is challenged, then the matter would come to a vote of the House, which, odds are, would support Pelosi's ruling. The referral of the resolution to the Judiciary (without a prior vote of the House to authorize an inquiry means that the question for the Committee would be whether it should recommend adoption of the resolution and its pretty certain at this point that COnyers wouldn't do anything with it (since he hasn't done anythign with the Cheney reoslution that already has been referred to Judiciary).

Even taking the best case, Pelosi agrees that its a question of privilege and assigns one hour of debate, split between the minority and majority. First of all, if a member wants to stand on the floor of the House and argue for impeacahment, he/she can probably find a way to do that now, without introducing a resolution. But the bigger question is how different will the world be after one or two members speak in support of an impeachment resolution for a half hour/15 minutes or even if 30 members each make a one minute statement? NOt much.

Finally, after going on for an hour, someone will rise with a motion to refer the resolution to committee, which almost certainl will pass and the process will be back where I said it would be...dying in committee.

[pat_k]

268. None of which touches on the moral imperatives, potential political benefits of impeachment,. . .

. . .or the risk of failing to impeach.

The topic that I have repeatedly attempted to turn this eachange back to is the case that their failure to impeach is a devasting mistake, both morally and politically. It is a mistake that is far graver than their failure to oppose the Authorization to Use Military Force.

Rationalizations like "we don't have the votes" are just erroneous excuses intended to shut out anything that contradicts the morally-confused and politically misguided conviction that impeachment can't, won't, or shouldn't happen. I have challenged "We don't have the votes." Unless I am misreading, it seems that you admit that "We don't have the votes" is not a certainty. If so, perhaps we can dispense with that one and get back to the point -- that in our current national crisis, impeachment, win or lose, is the ONLY rational, meaningful response. All else is spittng in the wind.

Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. Members of Congress, who we empowered and charged with the duty of evicting (impeaching) such trespassers, are refusing to act.

Surrendering your property to squatters without a fight is insanity, but that insanity doesn't compare to the magnitude of the insanity of surrendering a nation without a fight. But that is precisely what Members of Congress are doing when they say that the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney can't, won't, or shouldn't happen.

[CreekDog]

232. Before you wanted conviction

Maybe you should think this through, as Frank, Conyers and Pelosi have actually done.

[CreekDog]

231. God, you don't even know how many votes are required to convict?

And you expect ANYBODY to listen to you regarding impeachment?

Ignorance imparts the least knowledge at the most volume, I swear.

[cali]

41. Aware Americans? That's a bit elitest and condescending.

I'm pro-impeachment but I know plenty of bright, educated and aware Americans who think like some on this thread. Are you suggesting that those that don't agree with you, simply aren't aware?

[babylonsister]

50. No, cali, I'm claiming there is a vast majority of Americans

who aren't paying attention, can't name the VP, don't know the difference between parties, and don't care. They are ignorant and apathetic. There could be many reasons for it, but that's the way it is.

[...of J.Temperance]

54. It's elitist in itself to refer to

People that you've never met as being "ignorant and apethetic"....how do you know WHAT these people know, how do you know they can't name the VP....have you done a widespread poll of the mainstream public or something?

Maybe a good number of them are just worried about keeping their jobs, paying the bills and feeding their families?

[cali]

57. Then that's what you should have said initially

because this is what you did say:

Aware Americans are crying for a change and are pissed off

Not quite the same thing.

[babylonsister]

59. How is that different? Aware is aware... nt

[CreekDog]

235. You were pretty ignorant of the 67 vote requirement

[CreekDog]

230. Yeah, but as Adlai Stevenson said, "But I need A MAJORITY!"

Egads.

[MadHound]

42. This isn't about the precious party,

This is about doing justice in the name of the people. This is about restoring at least some of our integrity as a nation in the eyes of the rest of the world, cleaning up our own house so to speak. Try putting the needs of our country before the needs of a party.

[...of J.Temperance]

51. So that would mean

That the Republicans in 2008 would not only win the WH, but they'd probably regain control of Congress and the Senate.

That would mean MORE wars....Iran, Syria, and whoever else they feel like bombing, it'd also mean that they'd HAVE the votes to privatize Social Security, further spend like drunken sailors on a credit card binge thus more MASSIVE Deficit spending thus further adding to the already HUGE National Debt....it'd mean that they could appoint two more Supreme Court Justices, because John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will either pass away or retire during the next four years....that'd mean two more Right-Wing Justices, that'd mean a SOLID attempt to repeal Roe v Wade, that'd mean abortion would be 100% illegal again and result in women being left to the mercy of backstreet abortionists which would result in more women dying from botched abortions....it'd also mean they could pursue their aim of REDUCING gay people into FULLY second class citizens.

Should I go on? Or is that ENOUGH to make you figure out WHAT'S at stake in the 2008 Election and are you WILLING to throw EVERYTHING away in pursuit of some idiotic Impeachment drive that DOESN'T have the votes to pass BOTH House of Congress and thus is doomed to fail.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[MadHound]

63. So, you seem to think that exposing the crimes of this administration

Live and on television, week after week after week would actually work in the 'Pugs favor? Wow, you didn't live through Watergate, or have much faith in the people of this country. You know and I know that the crimes committed by this man are many and severe, and whether or not the effort is successful, it still won't paint the 'Pugs in any sort of good light. Hell, most Americans know, just like they did with Dick, that yes, Bush is a criminal. It's even the regular fodder of late night, comedy and news.

Sorry, but your reasoning, just like your faith in the people of this country and your sense of justice, is faulty. Think about it.

[...of J.Temperance]

66. The Democrats winning the 2008 Presidential Election is MORE important to me

The Democrats keeping control of the House and the Senate in 2008 is MORE important to me.

It means that we will be in a position for another FOUR YEARS to be able to enact whatever policies WE want to, WITHOUT the threat of a Republican Presidential VETO blocking things.

And to me, THAT'S called progress.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[MadHound]

70. And that my friend, proves my point.

Putting party before people.
Putting party before progress.
Putting party before justice.
Putting party before country.

Have you no shame? Have you no sense? This is no longer about the party, this is about our country, reclaiming it and setting it to rights. This isn't about party anymore. It is about we the people.

[...of J.Temperance]

75. Don't you think that the

Neo-Conservatives have done ENOUGH damage and caused ENOUGH division in seven years?

How do you expect to "reclaim the country" with the Neo-Conservatives in power until 2012, don't you think things will get even worse than they are already?

Yes I do have sense, I'm thinking of the bigger picture, instead of thinking in the short-term, I'm thinking in the long-term and WHAT things are going to be like for....the WORLD really....if the Neo-Conservatives remain in charge past-2008.


On Edit: Added word

[MadHound]

83. Again, you are assuming that having an impeachment hearing will be a good thing for the 'Pugs.

Why? This wouldn't be a rerun of the Clinton impeachment, where most people's reaction was "Eww, TMI!" No, this would rival Nixon's impeachment, with hearing concerning matters that makes Nixon look like a piker. I saw those hearings, so did the rest of the country back in the day. And from the minute that the film started rolling, it was simply which Democrat won the primary in '76, the 'Pugs were being shut out. Whether or not impeachment would be passed is irrelevant, the simple spectacle on CSPAN would galvanize the nation against the 'Pugs.

Besides, did each and every Democratic Congressperson take an oath to uphold the Constitution and fulfill their duties? This doesn't mean when it's convenient, or when you're not facing an election year, this means when justice needs to be done. This is one of those times.

[SaveElmer]

91. Comparison does not work...

Today's media is far different from that in 1972, 24 news, so called "news" channels with a right wing agenda, talk radio dominated by rabid right wingers...

There is no way the Democrats would win the PR war on this in such a short time...Republicans would stall, block equivocate...in short, do anything they could to keep from losing more power...

There are very few Conservatives with a conscience anymore like Barry Goldwater willing to stick his neck out...

It would be a partisan and political bloodbath, one the Democrats would have almost no chance of winning...

Not worth it when Bush will be out of office in the time an impeachment proceeding would take...

Not to mention that everything...including Iraq, would take a backseat to this...we would be treated to 24 hour impeachment coverage...with Iraq just being another news story...

The wet dream of every Republican worried about losing his job next year.

[MadHound]

92. Wow, you're spinning so hard on this one that you're contradicting yourself

On the one hand you're saying that the media will downplay this because they're dominated by the right wing, and on the other hand you're saying that it would be 24 hour impeachment. Which is it:shrug:
Sorry, but even in the current media environment, the message of impeachment would come through loud and clear. Like I said earlier, most Americans recognize that Bush is a criminal anyway.

But as I also said, part of this is restoring credibility of our country in the eyes of the world, cleaning up our own house.

[SaveElmer]

97. I said nothing of the kind...

The RW media media will play this to the hilt...this will be a godsend to them...24 hours a day...nothing they will like better to obscure all of their current problems than a nice juicy partisan fight with Democrats trying to "get through impeachment what they couldn't do at the ballot box"

By the time any of the stuff Democrats wanted to sink in it will be too late...

It's a huge stupid risk to take...

Why don't you go ahead and list for me the 17 Republican Senators you think can be induced to vote to convict George Bush...

There is much easier, more lasting and effective way for us to clean our own house...and that is beat the crap out of the Republicans in next years election...

[creeksneakers2]

183. You are putting a quixotic impeachment attempt

ahead of all those things.

The party fights for people,progress,justice and country. We don't have to choose between the two.

[beaconess]

89. Why do you think that the ony way to expose their lies is through impeachment hearings?

First of all, unless there are thorough investigations BEFORE the hearings, there won't be much to produce DURING the hearings.

It seems that many of the people screaming for impeachment weren't around for or don't remember the Nixon impeachment process. The Nixon impeachment hearings did not begin until early in 1974, AFTER the Ervin Committee conducted extensive hearings into Watergate. The only reason the Judiciary Committee was able to begin impeachment hearings was that they had voluminous evidence from the oversight and investigatory hearings that were conducted during the previous 18 months. By the time the Judiciary Committee began their hearings, they had John Dean on record, the tapes (the existence of which were revealed by Alexander Butterfield in the previous hearings), etc.

I'll bet that not one of the people clamouring for impeachment today can remember one single revelation that came out of the Nixon impeachment hearings. That's because nothing new did come out of them. All of the dramatic and damning testimony and evidence that we remember today came out in 1973 during the Watergate hearings in the Senate. And that evidence was the basis for the impeachment hearings and the committee vote to issue articles of impeachment.

The current drive for impeachment hearings NOW fails to take into account the fact that impeachment hearings are NOT the place to gather and present to the public the evidence - that must be done before it even gets to that stage. Both the House and Senate are conducting hearings in many different committees. It's not as sexy as Watergate because, unlike Watergate, they are not dealing with one crime (the break-in) and its aftermath (the cover-up). Bush's wrongdoing is extensive, widespread and difficult to pin down in one quick narrative. The only way to even possibly have a successful impeachment effort is to painstakingly pull together an incredible array of information.

This isn't easy and it isn't sexy. It doesn't lend itself to Perry Mason moments in the committee room. It's hard work and people are working their butts off doing these investigations. Maybe it will produce enough evidence to convince a majority to suppor impeachment, maybe it won't.

But screaming and demanding impeachment hearings now won't do a lick of good. In my view, it is extremely shortsighted and bad strategy.

[kath]

122. If "people are working their butts off doing these investigations", then where the hell are the

subpeonas that they've been threatening to serve for MONTHS now???

[beaconess]

133. Subpoenas aren't the only way to conduct an investigation . . .

And sometimes it's smarter strategy to try to get the information some other way. I don't know if that's what they're doing, but I would never assume that they aren't conducting a thorough investigation just because they haven't issued subpoenas.

Just because they're not conducting their investigations the way you think they should be doing it doesn't mean they aren't doing it right or well. There's much more to a Congressional investigation than hearings and subpoenas - those are just the high-profile, sexy part of the job. Most of the work is done out of the spotlight. And it's not done in a few days or few weeks or even just a few months.

I say we need to let them do their jobs and stop screaming bloody murder just because they're not trotting out dog and pony shows for our amusement and satisfaction.

[CreekDog]

236. Go ahead and expose, nothing's stopping you

And a failed impeachment would be seen as some as an acquittal regarding the charges.

Hmmm.

[onenote]

253. you seem to think that the crimes of this administration would be "exposed"

live and on television week after week. Unfortunately, that's not how the process works. First step you have to get the full House to adopt a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct the inquiry that you think will expose the crimes to the public on television. That resolution can't pass because it won't get any repub support and more than enough Democrats won't support it either.

No television, no whiz bang. Just fizzle.

[BootinUp]

95. logic doesn't apply at DU

I'm sure you see my point. ;)

[babylonsister]

61. Thank you!!!

:toast:

[...of J.Temperance]

64. So ALL of the things in my post # 51 mean NOTHING of IMPORTANCE to you then?

I mean, you're willing to throw ALL of those things away?

[babylonsister]

67. You need one of these:

and I did respond to one of your posts recently.

[...of J.Temperance]

72. That pill looks cool....

I'm asking the Magic 8 Ball right now if I should take it or not....

[SaveElmer]

78. How does returning Congress and the White House...

To the Republican Party "do justice in the name of the people."?

It won't restore anything but 4 more years of the hell we have been through for the last 8...

And in fact, it is through our "precious party" that sanity will be restored to the body politic...if you don't believe the Democratic Party is the best way forward what the hell are you doing here?

[MadHound]

88. Go see my posts 63 and 83 above where I already answered that same question

:shrug:

[mmonk]

103. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I know when Americans find out

all the crimes against the constitution, they will reward that party with another election victory. By the way, I own a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

[robinlynne]

119. It would do no such thing. watch the Bill Moyers special on impeachment.

really watch it. It will astonish you. Listen to a republican tell you impeachment is NECESSARY.

[KnaveRupe]

197. Seriously, man! These DUmmies oughta check their history!

When the GOP impeached Clinton over a blowjob, it TOTALLY guaranteed that the 2000 election would go to whoever the Democrats chose as their nominee!

Oh, wait - except it didn't.

The Republicans trumped up bogus charges against Clinton, impeached him while his approval rating was in the 60% range, knew that it was doomed to fail in the Senate, and STILL managed to steal the 2000 election.

Don't give me that "Impeachment is political suicide" BS. Here's the question you and Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi, and everyone else who thinks impeachment should be "off the table" needs to answer:

DO YOU THINK GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY HAVE COMMITTED OFFENSES THAT WARRANT IMPEACHMENT?

That's a simple yes/no question. If your answer is no, then good on ya. But if your answer is yes, then failing to even CONSIDER impeachment, the only CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY for abuse of power by the executive is dereliction of duty.

If a local D.A. decided not to prosecute a well-connected local criminal because his campaign staff calculated that it might hurt his re-election chances, you'd be clamoring for his head. Yet demanding to see the Bush Administration held accountable for their crimes qualifies me as a wacko.

[lligrd]

13. I Don't Care If It Is A Waste Of Time

Sometimes you need to do things just because they are the right thing to do. Let everything else stall in the meantime. It is not like much good has been coming out anyway. There is nothing more important than stopping these criminals and saving the country.

[SaveElmer]

16. There is nothing more important than stopping these criminals and saving the country.

And how do you imagine impeachment will do this...you don't actually think you can drum up 17 or more Republicans to vote for conviction do you...

The best way to stop these criminals is to beat them silly at the election polls next year...

Pursue impeachment and that goes down the tubes...

[lligrd]

29. I Don't See How Impeachment Proceedings

ruin election wins for Democrats. The investigations alone would bring more information regarding their criminality to the attention of the public. I think the public is becoming very disenchanted with Dems right now and that is a much greater risk to their election results.

[robinlynne]

120. It is not a waste of time. The poster simply decided what would happen, in

his crystal ball, then using his known future, criticized other thinkers. maybe it's the dlc flag?

[beaconess]

134. Yeah - who cares if sick kids get health insurance, or if college students can pay for school

or that the Department of Education gets funded or poor people get their food stamps.

Just so long as we can make a point.

:sarcasm:

[lligrd]

158. My Point Exactly

* has ensured that sick kids still won't get health insurance. And the loans for college students is hardly as urgent as our rights that * continues to dissolve and get away with.

[CreekDog]

238. But you won't actually impeach the guy

So he will continue to get away with what he's been getting away with.

Only now you are saying to throw out any good that could be done in the meantime.

I'll tell my reps to not go with your strategy, thank you very much.

[liberation]

184. Do we live in the same reality?

Because last I checked Bush is getting carte blanche pretty much on everything. S-CHIP is for all intents and purposes dead, Iraq is still going on, the economy is still in the shitter. And to top it all Bush has managed to convince a lot of Americans that the fault resides on the Congress.

Guess what Congress' approval ratings are even lower than Bush's.

But by all mean keep on making excuses... if winning the '08 election is so important to you, fine. I will be packing my suitcases because I am not willing to sit through another exercise in Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

What a lot of you are proposing is that you rather appease those who would never vote for you (the GOP and moderate conservatives) by pissing off those who may consider voting for you (liberals and whatever leftists that are left in this country).... and praying that the center voters get off their lazy asses come election day.

[...of J.Temperance]

15. What you say is total common sense

Of course there's no groundswell for Impeachment, there's also the fact that neither the House nor the Senate has the votes, because they'd ALSO have to get a portion of Republican's voting for Impeachment as well, which of course is an impossibility.

An Impeachment drive that would almost certainly fail, would also be electoral suicide for the Democratic Party going into a Presidential Election.

The real world isn't clamouring for an Impeachment drive, when there's more pressing and important issues that still need addressing, the Democrats also weren't elected to take charge of Congress and the Senate to launch an Impeachment drive, they were elected to deal with the bread and butter issues that are of concern to the mainstream public.

[HughMoran]

175. Stop making sense!

I swear that a good portion of the pro-impeachment folks are Republicans hoping to entice the Dems to commit political suicide.

[ldf]

150. there is not much of a groundswell for impeachment

i wonder why..

do you think maybe it is because 90% of americans have no clue as to what these shitbags have done?

huh?

and we, apparently, have no intention of taking the path that will educate them.

as they say..

whatever.

[pat_k]

177. Same old litany of bogus excuses for inaction.

Already dealt with "don't have the votes" in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3607151">171. "Don't have the votes" my ass.

It's heartbreaking -- hearing the same old erroneous¹ excuses to over, and over again, year in and year out -- "The public will rise against us," "We'll lose the White House," "Impeachment will tear the nation apart," Impeachment is a waste ("We don't have votes in the Senate," "We have better things to do."). . .

The beltway "conventional wisdom" falls like a house of cards when challenged -- as it has been countless times over the years, and more recently here on DU and elsewhere. (For example, the exchange that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x34242#34533">this Jun 14th post or one that starts with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3146696#3147620">this Mar 16th post)).

If anyone should know better, it's Barney Frank. He was singing the same song back in 1986 and 1987. When they took back the Senate in 1987, the cocksure Dems thought the White House was theirs for the taking as long as they didn't "overreach" or get "too prosecutorial." ² They just had to "get things done." They "knew" Reagan was too weakened by Iran-Contra to stand in their way. Impeachment was unthinkable.

Predictably, far from weakened, Reagan and the Republicans stood against them and blocked their every move. Democrats proved their weakness and impotence to the American people.³ The silly slap on the wrist they gave Poppy Bush fed the notion that Iran-Contra was "no big deal." And they watched in shock as the White House slipped from their waiting hands.

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________

1. er-ro-ne-ous adj.
   1. containing error; mistaken; incorrect; wrong: an erroneous answer.
   2. straying from what is moral, decent, proper, etc.
   =================================================
   {Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L errōneus straying, equiv. to errōn- (s. of errō) wanderer (deriv. of err-) + -eus -eous }


2. http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50716F83C5C0C748EDDA80994DE484D81">RISKS FOR THE DEMOCRATS, By R. W. APPLE JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, Published: November 27, 1986
   
   
   . . .
   
   Leading Democrats are worried that their party may waste the advantage it has clearly gained from the disarray in the White House by behaving, in the words of a Democratic leader in Congress, ''like so many apprentice Torquemadas.''
   Flushed with victory in the Nov. 4 elections, which gave them control of the Senate, the Democrats see obvious benefits and not-so-obvious pitfalls in the unfolding crisis of secret arms shipments to Iran and possibly illegal diversion of funds to the rebels in Nicaragua. One main pitfall, in the view of many senior members of the party, is seeming too prosecutorial, too much like the notorious leader of the Spanish Inquisition. 'Don't Exaggerate'
   
   ''It's important that we don't exaggerate,'' said Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who formerly served as chairman of Americans for Democratic Action. ''We should't talk about Watergate or impeachment or jail terms. In a way, it's a good thing Congress is not in session, because that would tempt some of our more hotheaded members to decide the time has come to abuse Ronald Reagan.''
   
   ''It's important that we don't exaggerate,'' said Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who formerly served as chairman of Americans for Democratic Action. ''We should't talk about Watergate or impeachment or jail terms. In a way, it's a good thing Congress is not in session, because that would tempt some of our more hotheaded members to decide the time has come to abuse Ronald Reagan.''. . .


3. http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40717F8355E0C7A8CDDA10894DF484D81">Limits of Power: How the Democrats are kept on the defensive, NY Times, August 9, 1987
   
   
   . . .
   The joint committees investigating the Iran-contra affair shone a harsh spotlight on the use and abuse of executive power. . . . But outside the committee room, somewhere along the way from the ebullient opening of Congress in January to its ragged departure this weekend for the August recess, a lesson was being learned about the limits on another source of power, the power of Congress itself.
   
   The Democrats who now control both Houses of Congress for the first time in the Reagan era learned that winning the majority was not the same as winning the power to control events, or even to shape them. Time after time, the Republican minority has demonstrated that being out of power need not mean being out of political instincts. President Reagan, weakened by foreign policy scandal and his lame-duck status, has nonetheless refused to slide into the irrelevancy that Democratic leaders keep predicting for him.. . .
   
   Filibusters, as well as vetoes, have left Senator Byrd seething with frustration. . .
   
   On foreign policy, opinion polls showing that the public has more confidence in Congress than in President Reagan. . .
   
   Yet Congress remains all but paralyzed in foreign affairs. . . The sustained Congressional uproar over the Administration's actions in the Persian Gulf ultimately produced nothing more than a few nonbinding resolutions. . .
   
   It is as if Congress, while rejecting the messengers, has internalized . . . the inevitable primacy of the Presidency in a ''dangerous world.''

[Devlzown]

10. Of all the dirty shit going on,

we trouble him? All he can do is sit around and bitch that the Dems only have 51 votes in the Senate? K&R

[babylonsister]

85. Very good point. Thanks. nt

[Yukari Yakumo]

126. What 51?

Remember, UnHoly Joe is 51 of that 51.

[Gregorian]

11. These guys are living in their own world. Congressland.

They all have an average net worth of nine million. They have the best health care. They fly all over the world. They have their own private gym.

I'm just saying, they're out of touch. And it's quite obvious to we who are on the ground.

I find it highly insulting to both the American people AND to the sentiment of the Constitution, that they care so little about what the American people have to say. And we are saying it. That they cannot deny. Look, the rest of the world understands what the American people know. So why doesn't Congress?

[Lochloosa]

17. My Step Brother is an eight term congressman

He sleeps on the couch in his office most nigths. He is not worth "Nine Million". No he is raising a family of four. He has had to support TWO households on his salary.

He is not "our of touch". He does tell me there just are not the votes to impeach. I believe him.

[Gregorian]

32. Bill Clinton was saying Congress is actually overworked. Sleep deprived.

But I think out of touch still holds for many of them. But because they are so overworked. It's not like it was. They used to go home for months out of the year. Bill Clinton actually claims that there is a lot of sleep deprivation in Congress.

Of course Kucinich and Conyers and Reid aren't out of touch. Nor your brother in law, obviously.

As for the impeachment of some in this administration, that is an ongoing discussion that has been gone over many times here. To not even try is to admit defeat without putting forth the effort. Among many other things. We don't know what the House might present. And we don't know what the votes might be. I really resent rolling over because of some hypothetical lack of votes. We don't know what the votes might be.


Edit- Eight terms!

[creeksneakers2]

188. We know for sure Republicans wouldn't vote for it

That's 100% certain. If some new facts came out, that could change, but for now, no GOP votes. Not in a million years.

[durrrty libby]

36. I believe Barney Frank and your step brother too

:hi: :loveya:

[baldguy]

14. What insists on impeachment is the Constitution.

Rep Frank: Either uphold the law - or go home and let someone else do it.

[Odin2005]

33. Where in the Constitution does it REQUIRE impeachment?

AFAIK it ALLOWS impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" but I never remember seeing anything saying it's required.

[baldguy]

45. Whenever the Constitution talks about impeachment, it uses "shall".

This is a directive, it is not an option. If a crime has been committed, it shall be investigated. If someone is guilty, they shall be punished.

[Odin2005]

142. Doh, I stand corrected!

I must of misremembered that clause to say "shall be removed from office IF convicted of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." :spank:

[MonkeyFunk]

143. No

it really doesn't. People keep saying that here, but it's just not true.

[beaconess]

161. It says, that Congress SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER of impeachment."

Nowhere in the Constitution is impeachment REQUIRED.

Here is every reference to impeachment in the Constitution:

"The Senate SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER to try all Impeachments."

"When the President of the United States is tried, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHALL PRESIDE: AND NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment SHALL NOT EXTEND FURTHER than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but THE PARTY CONVICTED SHALL NEVERTHELESS BE LIABLE AND SUBJECT TO INDICTMENT, JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT, according to law."

"The President . . . SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT REPRIEVES AND PARDONS for Offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT."

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, SHALL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ON IMPEACHMENT FOR AND CONVICTION of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"The Trial of all Crimes, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT, shall be by jury."

So, you're right, the Constitution does use "shall" in connection with impeachment. But you conveniently left out the next four words: "have the power," which definitively makes impeachment a discretionary, not mandatory, process

As I wrote earlier, the use of the word "shall" in connection with impeachment does not require Congress to impeach any more than the word "shall" in connection with the declaration of war means that Congress must declare war.

[onenote]

256. you must have a different constitution that I do.

Mine says that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't anywhere mandate that such power be used. It is extraordinarily poor legal analysis and reasoning to suggest otherwise. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between a grant of authority to act and a mandate to act. Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution declares that the President shall have "the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" but no one would ever suggest that this somehow imposes an obligation on the executive to grant a reprieve or pardon in any particular instance, whether or not "justified" in some sense.

Put another way, the supposed constitutional obligation imposed on the House to impeach is absurd and unenforceable. WOuld you suggest that if the House voted on articles of impeachment that the members who voted against were somehow guilty of a constitutional violation? What if a majority voted against. Would those who supported impeachment be guilty of violating a constitutional duty? It is a nonsensical construction of the plain words of the COnstitution to suggest that it imposes any obligation on the House. What it does it confer authority, which the House can choose to exercise or not exercise as it sees fit.

[pat_k]

176. Their oath demands it.

We have heard nearly every member of the so-called "leadership" accuse Bush and Cheney of waging war on the Constitution. They admit that Bush and Cheney have committed intolerable violations. The ONLY weapon capable of removing the threat is impeachment. Their oath demands that they pick up that weapon and FIGHT.

The crimes are intolerable. But surrendering to the criminals without a fight is even worse. Lawbreakers don't destroy our system of government. It is the failure of those whose duty it is to ENFORCE that destroys. Prosecutors take an oath to "seek justice." Members of Congress take an oath to "support and defend." Neither oath is an oath win; only to fight -- to "seek" to "support and defend."

It is impossible to carry out their duty to defend the Constitution if the only mechanism by which certain types of threats can be eliminated is "off the table." Pelosi violated her congressional oath when she issued her "off the table" "pledge."

Revised Oath (Changes Mandated by Pelosi's Pledge)

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and be derelict in my duty to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear foreswear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will fail to take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully negligently and faithlessly discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

[CreekDog]

239. He said there aren't votes for impeachment, he didn't say he wouldn't vote for it

Did you read what he said?

Upholding "the law" requires his 1 vote plus 217 in the House and 67 in the Senate. Barney Frank cannot uphold the law on his own.

Apparently some of you want dictatorships as long as you or someone you agree with gets to be the dictator. Guess who you are like then?

[bonito]

18. Damn Barney? wtf

You have soooo much support, don't waste it on the fear factor brother. Peace

[pingzing58]

25. Pelosi can allow a symbolic vote against freedom of speech ref. Moveon.org but can't allow a symboli

vote expressing loath for the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Bushco? I still don't get it.

[Odin2005]

26. Barney obviously gets what a lot of DUers don't.

I've been using the "she can't wave the magic wand" argument for a while now.

[ronnykmarshall]

65. How DARE you?????

You're are just another prawn of KKKarl.

You're Obama support don't fool me! No way, no how!

:sarcasm:

[Odin2005]

80. LOL!

Oh, and I love that pic in your signature! :hi:

[Mojambo]

30. You know what troubles me? That my Reps refuse to excercise their constitutional OBLIGATION.

Impeachment is NOT an option. It is an OBLIGATION.

[Richardo]

149. You know what troubles me? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Cite the clause in the constitution that obliges Congress to impeach. Clue: It's not Article II, Section 4.

[onenote]

257. No its not. It is a power granted to the House to use in its discretion.

[TreasonousBastard]

34. So now Barney Frank becomes the enemy...

because he knows that Pelosi does not have magical powers to grant wishes.

Jeez, even Barney Frank comes out and spanks you impeachment obessesives and you still don't get it.

[BootinUp]

39. Another whiny fuckin post at DU.

Why didn't you run for congress?

[EstimatedProphet]

40. You know what? You people don't deserve to have an impeachment!

Because you want it RIGHT NOW. Because you want to send articles of impeachment to the floor of the House without doing the background work of investigations - investigations that are the only method of PROVING to the people of this country that Bush/Cheney are indeed responsible for it all. No, you have to have it RIGHT NOW, and if it isn't RIGHT NOW then it must be because everyone in Congress is a secret Repub mole.

It doesn't matter whether a majority of the people want an impeachment.

It doesn't matter whether there are 218 votes in the House.

What matters as far as I'm concerned is that too many people on this board would rather try to push an impeachment that is guaranteed to fail, rather than do the fucking legwork that it would take to make one happen that would win! If we let the investigations proceed, the facts will come out, and that is the only chance we will ever have of convincing the Repubs in the Senate to convict. But no, all of you would rather be lazy and whine about how everyone but yourselves are traitors!

[beaconess]

49. THANK you!!!

Of course, you probably won't get anywhere - after all, you're using logic.

[beaconess]

43. Whoa - another liberal hero bites the dust . . .

How dare he not agree with the Impeach Now or Die! crowd!!!

He's a DINO!

:sarcasm:

[cali]

47. Yep. Barney Frank is a DLC corporacrat paid off

by big business and AIPAC.

[ronnykmarshall]

52. And a shrill for AFLAC!

That duck never fooled ME!!!




Barney Frank and the AFLAC Duck - Fascist insets that prey upon the lives of The People!

[partylessinOhio]

53. Another rep who has stayed too long at the party.

Enable * at any cost.

12 soldiers buried today in 1 casket:

[ronnykmarshall]

55. Then vote him out!

Oh wait .... you don't live in that fascist pigs district!

MOVE! MOVE! MOVE!

Quickly, do it NOW!!!!

[ronnykmarshall]

68. Looks like the extended cab truck is out tonight .....

[BootinUp]

71. I'm not up on that reference

what does it mean? lol.

[sampsonblk]

76. Strung out on power. The only excuse for not impeaching

What I keep hearing is that impeachment will imperil our chances of gaining more seats. I don't give a fuck about that. But that's the focus of this current congress. More seats and more power.

Most, if not all of them know Bush has broken the law repeatedly. Unfortunately, they won't even say it publicly, for fear of --- losing seats, of course. Its their only strong belief that they won't stray from.

[BootinUp]

82. What an amazing contradiction you represent

You're pissed off 'cause the Dems don't accomplish anything and yet you fault them for trying to gain more power so they can control government policy. Give it some thought please.

[sampsonblk]

140. You honestly don't get it do you?

I don't care if they 'accomplish anything.' I care that they do their jobs. Passing a bill is not an accomplishment.

Their failure to make an honest effort to oppose Bush is not a result of needing more seats. That's just an excuse, and does not explain voluntarily funding the war with no strings attached.

What kind of political party needs 60% of the legislature and control of the executive to be able to govern?

[BootinUp]

141. What kind of country

needs representatives or Presidents that don't do what they said they would do when elected? We got enough of those already.

Or that won't pay attention to the desires of the country.

The no-funding option is just as dead as the impeachment option.

Next question: Who was elected on a campaign pledge of no-funding?

P.S. Your going to lose this argument. The 60 votes are needed to responsibly affect the War.

[sampsonblk]

145. Circular stuff again?

What you're making is a bogus argument.

The Dems didn't campaign on those issues because they wanted to win seats. Now that they are in office, they can't do those things because they didn't campaign on them? Then when do those things ever get done? Then why win more seats?

Simple. They wanted to win because that would increase their power. Simple as that.


As for the funding issue, I am suggesting to refuse to authorize any funding that has no strings attached. That's what the public wants. Plus it has the added benefit of being common sense. You don't need 60 votes for that.

The options that you listed are dead because of a lack of courage. There is no other reason. No one is willing to take a risk.

[BootinUp]

146. The only circular argument was that spinner you just posted.

I'm dizzy.

[sampsonblk]

168. I have an answer for that too

Maybe the idea that politicians ought to have a purpose other than power is something that just doens't register with you. No big deal.

[BootinUp]

172. Sorry, I don't see at all where you have

made that case, that this is why we haven't impeached or stopped funding the war. Sure, I would have a problem with it in that event. And there are plenty of politicians who do have that problem. But you have expanded the guilty to include the whole party. Like you know what goes on their heads, you seem to be a mind reader. One that ignores very realistic explanations , albeit frustrating ones, for how government works.

[Mutineer]

81. Yeah you know what disturbs me Barney?

That so many of you lazy fucks in the Congress can't see that these bastards need to be impeached! And you get testy when anyone suggests to you that you ought to be doing your damn job, not sitting on your lazy ass! Deal with it!

[RoyGBiv]

84. Good. I'm glad he said it ...

It's about time someone truly on the left said it so plainly.

[Lint Head]

87. Anybody that doesn't think George Bush and Dick Cheney

need to be impeached can go to hell! The reason? They have put this country through hell ans Satan is loving it. :dem:

[Nite Owl]

93. What troubles me is

the fact that they go along with the GOP agenda even though they are the majority! I didn't in any way expect them to unveil a new health care plan or any big legislation but I did expect them to have some actual control over what exactly was voted on instead of letting all the repuke legislation even come to the floor. And as far as impeachment if they even tried to expose what this administration has done then they would have his head on a platter, people would be screaming for impeachment. They have the power to do much more than they have, they don't even try.

[BootinUp]

94. why not research some facts

before posting?

President Bush’s success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

The previous low for any president was in 1995, when Bill Clinton won just 26 percent of the time during the first year after Republicans took control of the House. If Bush’s score holds through the end of the year, he will have the lowest success rating in either chamber for any president since Congressional Quarterly began analyzing votes in 1953.

A study of House and Senate floor votes, compiled by CQ over the August recess, also showed that House Democrats have backed Bush’s legislative positions this year only 6 percent of the time, making for the strongest opposition from either party against a president in the 54 years CQ has kept score.

A separate analysis of so-called party unity votes, in which a majority of one party votes against a majority of the other, showed the possibility of another historic first for House Democrats. So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years.

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

[Nite Owl]

99. Sorry but those voting statistics are

meaningless. They vote on what the leadership presents not what is needed. Why was some GOP induced vote like condemning moveon.org even allowed to get to the floor? Why was the bill to withdraw troops not sent back to him after he vetoed it? This dem leadership is a gift to the GOP, they say jump and the dems answer 'how high'.

[BootinUp]

100. You confuse what you believe

with what the majority in America believe. Try that on.

[Nite Owl]

102. If you would take your head out of the

sand you would see how most Americans see this democratic leadership. Most people are sick of it, they see it as a political maneuvering and they are the ones left out of the process. People were expecting a lot more last November and aren't happy with what they got.

[BootinUp]

104. Heres a simple question

Which Representatives were elected on a campaign pledge to impeach?

Can you name even one?

[Nite Owl]

108. They needn't have campaigned

on that, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. To me that means something and it's supposed to be their job.

[BootinUp]

109. Impeachment is a political excercise

you obviously believe otherwise, but I suggest you review its use in the past. You will never see it unless there is sufficient political support for it. As you recall the Dems used the "no impeach" pledge to gain more support in red and purple states, that about says it all. Who is going to punish the Dems and Republicans for not following the constitutional directive on impeachment? The people that voted for them on a "no impeach" pledge?

[Nite Owl]

111. Maybe where you are there isn't support

but here it's on everyone's tongue. It's on cars, it's talked about at meetings, people are angry to see that there will be no kind of accountability at all. Where there isn't the dems should be leading not hiding from it. It would give them the strength that people, even in red areas, want to see. One of the reasone dems have lost in many areas is not because they don't lean right enough but because people see them as weak and unable to protect them.

We could go on all night Jim but I got to get to bed. I have a fundraiser tomorrow for our local candidate. Talk again some other time.

Best to you.

[BootinUp]

112. cya around. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

187. How it got to the floor?

The two parties negotiate floor procedures with each other. Democrats campaigned on minority rights, which they believe in. Democrats can't just shut off the GOP completely.

The floor plan for the Pentagon funding bill that night granted each side the opportunity to offer five amendments. The GOP then wasted one of their amendment opportunities on MoveOn.org.

Nobody in Dem leadership had anything to do with whether the amendment came to the floor or not.

[onenote]

258. do you know anything about how Congress works. For example, a discharge petition?

Know what that is? Its rarely used, but that's because rather than go through that process, the leadership allows votes to get to the floor that have sufficient support to pass.

[LWolf]

98. And what troubles us is people in Congress who won't. n/t

[mmonk]

101. What troubles me are the people in the House of Representatives that won't.

[mmonk]

105. I will say this.

I consider all representatives in government that support the crimes against the constitution and the people of this nation, my political enemy. I do this unabashedly because they are enemies of my freedom and my family's freedom and our well being. This includes all who support Dick Cheney and george W. Bush by protecting them and shielding them, both democrat and republican. This is because these crimes are directly against us the people.

[ToeBot]

106. Pelosi's catching too much shit so Frank gives a presser, hoping to deflect and defuse?

After all there's no chance the Liberals would question Mr. Frank (he's gay you know!). I guess the left is making too much noise and "The Leaders" are having a tougher time than usual ignoring them. Cummon people, get with the program -> Sit down and shut-up!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

107. K&R!

Why would Americans want the Constitution to be followed? Why, indeed?

Mr. Frank, your inability to understand is not a failing of the American People who DO understand. It is YOUR failing. And what a monumental failing it is!

:puke:

[Senator]

123. Sorry Barney, Enabling Torturers Can Be "Troubling"

But it's not those "insisting" that you stop doing it who are causing your angst.

All they are asking is that you object -- accuse -- impeach. Then let the chips fall where they may. No one is demanding that you guarantee removal, or even a majority House vote, just that you not join the regime in their depraved indifference to war crimes.

We simply don't want Redemption of Our National Soul to remain "off the table."

===

[Perry Logan]

127. Thanks, Barney. But impeachbots don't hear what anyone says.

[ShortnFiery]

128. Nice, label those of us who support IMPEACHMENT because there's evidence + Constitutional Duty.

as Impeachbots. :eyes:

To the contrary, those gutless wonders who KNOW that there's ample evidence and an Constitutional DUTY to Impeach members of this criminal *Unitary Executive* are AWOL (Absent With-Out Leave).

Our Gutless ImpeachPhobic Representatives not only shame our beloved Democratic Party but they reflect poorly on our entire nation. If there's a just God, IMO, all these DLC and spineless Democratic Representatives will be unseated in their next Primary Challenge by an Anti-war Opponent. :(

[beaconess]

135. there is no constitutional requirement of impeachment

Congress has the POWER to impeach - there is no constitutional requirement that they do so.

Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

The power to impeach no more REQUIRES the Congress to impeach than the power to declare war REQUIRES the Congress to declare war.

[cali]

144. There is NO Constitutional duty to Impeach.

I'd argue that there's a MORAL duty, that there's a duty to history and to the future, but there isn't a Constitutional duty.

And Barney's opinion doesn't make him the monster you claim he is.

[Senator]

132. We hear quite clearly that he wants to "take reality into account"

But reality is right there in the article:

Yet even if the House passes a bill, it stands little chance of becoming law anytime soon. No action is expected in the Senate this year. President Bush is widely expected to veto such a measure, as he has promised to do on a hate-crimes bill that has passed the House and Senate and includes transgender people.

So are we to stand there listening to every grunt and wheeze while he masturbates in public?

Or do we simply point out that Only Impeachment is actually DOING anything real?

For some of us, opposing war criminals is not merely a lifestyle choice.

===

[Forkboy]

130. That's ok Barney, I still think you're the bees knees.

[ejbr]

136. I once walked by Barney Frank in a gay gym in Boston..

how was I to know that I should have slapped that bitch back then? :shrug:

Does he and Pelosi think that the "lunatic fringe" (approximately half the populace, btw) think that impeaching will end the nightmare? Hardly! However, the attempt to impeach will be a step in preventing future nightmares of administrations doing as they wish against laws, treaties and the constitution, knowing that Bush and Company did the same but were called on their shit.

So Barney and Nancy, if Congress fails to even act -- something that may even put the brakes on these criminals by making them think twice about breaking yet another law -- and the country is left vulnerable to future Bush/Cheneys, please be prepared to take the blame for your lack of response. Until then, fuck you both.

[beaconess]

148. Wow - why don't you just go around slapping everyone for good measure, just in case one day they do

something with which you don't agree?

[ejbr]

208. Sure. Where are you? n/t

[rasputin1952]

147. Frank is correct, and those of us that know politics know that

w/o the #'s, impeachment is literally a waste of time.

Let me put it this way, the R House impeached Clinton, the Senate didn't have the R votes to convict...are we so blind that we can't remember that? Not just that, but the backlash cost several high placed R's their jobs.

If the votes were even possible, I'd like to have seen bush impeached and convicted years ago. It is an act of utility at this point, and why even bother. Our case should be to keep fire on the D's until they grow a spine and tell the R's, to simple screw off, and nothing they put forward is going through, just as they did to us for years. Investigate the hell out of the GOP and the administration, and set the stage to where they won't have any power for a generation.


But excuse me, I am a realist.

As for the war, damn straight is should be over...but how? We need a plan besides just get up and go, even that would take months to accomplish....it is not like getting up and going to the Quickie-Mart for a Slushie.

Very few things get through the process on an "immediate" basis, and to be blunt, what you post here has little on what congress will do...you need to interact with them, and eve then, you may not succeed. Just because you are for or against something does not mean an action will take place, especially in the time frame you think it should happen.

In just over a year, bush will be gone, he will be open to all kinds of criminal charges and indictments if that route is take by the powers that be. The best option is to neuter hm, toss him in the WH basement, and set up the system that will deny neo-cons power for eternity. Being divisive and insisting on things that can't happen is an act of futility.

:rant: over

[Usrename]

152. Do you think that the Dems are afraid because they are criminals too?

"... Not just that, but the backlash cost several high placed R's their jobs."

Those high placed R's (Gingrich and Livingston) were in the crosshairs because they had also had extramarital affairs. (Do you understand why they couldn't continue to serve if they were impeaching a president for the same thing they had done themselves?)

If you are saying that our Dem leaders have committed certain felonies just like Bush, then that would be the best explanation I've heard yet for avoiding any discussion of impeachment. Any guesses as to what crimes they are trying to keep under wraps?

[rasputin1952]

157. I am not saying that at all, although we certainly have our share

of corrupt individuals.

THere are many reasons why the GOP leadership lost out, not the least being that even the R's in congress thought that people like DeLay were not doing the party any good, and wanted to get rid of him, but couldn't until there was a D congress.

The R's stand together, (usually), and that is the only strength have, they certainly have no ideas on how to run the country. They use fear and obfuscation, they have nothing else. After years of crap they've done, it is going to take a long time to change some of it back to where the nation actually benefits from decent legislation. There is no formula that will make things better immediately, it takes time and negotiation. Oddly, there are D's that think that Homeland Security is a "good" thing, it's going to take work to get the Bill of Rights back, unless we wind up with a massive increase in seats in congress.

Criminality is not rampant, although hubris and arrogance take a front seat in any congress. The object is to get more seats, push for change, and demand that the American citizen and welfare of the nation come first. We need to move from the politics of fear if we are going to get our nation back, and that is going to take work and time.

Just think what this nation could be like if 95% of the voters actually took the time to vote, instead of 55%. We would never be threatend by a neo-con agenda again, and bush would be in irons.

[Usrename]

159. I don't understand then.

Why do you think there would be any backlash at all? Why do you think it's better to just give the criminals more authority?

It does not make any sense to me.

I guess if everyone just tries to get along with the monsters then they are not really monsters anymore, no matter how many people they disappear or torture or kill.

Is that it?

[rasputin1952]

160. What criminality do you speak of? There is difference between

criminal behavior and immoral behavior.

DeLay was a criminal as well as immoral, Gingrich severely immoral, but not a criminal.

Where do you draw the line?

[Usrename]

163. It's a crime to instruct people to ignore a subpoena, for example.

Punishable by ten years in jail. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Are you really in any doubt that there have been crimes committed. What about bribery and treason? Or lying under oath, or shunning the FISA court, or torturing people, or dissapearing people, or stealing great huge gobs of money?

Jeebus.. for a shorter list, what crimes do you honestly think that they may not be guilty of committing?

[rasputin1952]

198. Sounds like you are talking abouot the administration...

and yes, they are criminals that occupy the executive level.

[Usrename]

199. They need to be stopped NOW! That's what impeachment is for!

It is immoral to shun this responsibility. Perhaps not criminal, unless they are willing co-conspirators, but certainly immoral.

[rasputin1952]

200. This congress can impeach, but it will not convict, the #'s are

not there.

Clinton redux, a huge waste of time...time that could be spent on things that would benefit this nation.

If there were the #'s in the Senate to convict, I would say it is feasible...right now, it is not feasible. That is a fact, there is not much we can do about it.

Remember, we need 60 senators, it ain't gonna happen. Just for laughs, we get Cheney as president if for some very odd reason bush was impeached and convicted. What a pleasant thought.

Impeach and convict both of them Pelosi becomes president. There is enough hatred for her on this site, much less in the ranks of the GOP, do you relly think this is an option?

[Usrename]

201. I think that's a ridiculous view.

Who is going to defend Cheney for stealing tens of billions of dollars? Who will defend Bush for lying about all of it?

Oooh, ooh, I know... Senator Larry Craig!!!111!!!!!!

:rofl:

[rasputin1952]

207. Politics 101...you are not going to get anything done w/o

the votes necessary.

The votes in the Senate are not there.

Who's going to defend Cheney? How about the people that are defending him now?

The votes to convict are not there, it is that simple.

When you add that Pelosi would become president by default, one can easily see that the entire thought of conviction is out the door. Would Pelosi make a good president, I think so, would the R's allow a situation to evolve that could make that possibility a reality...No.

Call for impeachment all you want, it's your dime, but it is not going to happen. Without #'s all else is moot; the R's found that out the hard way with the Clinton impeachment. It wasted resources, it did nothing as far as removing him from office, and it made Congress look like patent fools.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the bottom line is, unless there is a massive change of #'s in the Senate that would actually join together to take bush/cheney down, it is a futile exercise to "demand" that bush be impeached.

Just to add...by the time proceedings got underway, there would be a new president being inaugurated anyway. Indict bush/cheney after they leave office, there is no statute that protects them from criminal investigation/indictment after they leave office.

[pgh_dem]

262. Post 2008 investigation will not happen

The notion that a Democratic President, with a Democratic House and Senate, will pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration, is just not based in reality. They will not do this then, for precisely the reasons they won't do it now. They have other stuff they want to do, and hey, it wasn't them getting bagged, drugged and extraordinarily renditioned to endure months of torture. I guarantee you that, same as in the Nixon and Iran/Contra situations, the politicians will assure us that it is in the interest of "healing" our country to just let it go, pardon everyone involved and pretend it never happened.

If people are going to be urged to be realistic, let's at least be realistic about that.

For further realism, let's call it straight without the snarky hyperbole of the "Barney Frank is DLC! (Sarcasm)" posts:
To people who support criminal investigation of the Bush administration, the Democratic Party, as an organization, is not interested. They believe it would not benefit them politically, as an organization, nor (they believe) would it benefit their direct constituents in terms of legislation to pass. This viewpoint has been expressed repeatedly across the spectrum of the party, from unquestionably liberal reps like Frank, Pelosi, and even John Conyers, to the people you expect not to support anything liberal, such as the Blue Dog/DLC folks. This doesn't make any of the liberals into DLC/Blue Dogs.

So we should just get over it. War crimes, shmore crimes. Subpoenas, who cares? Voter suppression, where...? The time to investigate these things is never. Politics is the art of the possible, and justice is just not possible when nearly half of the government has no interest in the law. And I obviously don't mean our half.

Fair enough?

[BootinUp]

204. correction, we would need 67 Senators.

But your point remains valid. :)

[rasputin1952]

206. Thank you for the correction, I was tired, (good excuse as any)...

For some reason I was thinking 31, but posted 30, and yet know it is 67...go figure...:D

Like that is going to happen any time soon...:eyes:

[Senator]

165. Usually people who claim to "know politics" actually KNOW virtually nothing.

They think they know "something icky" about the Clinton impeachment farce, but in reality any comparison to that situation is oxymoronic. And yet we see people reading into its aftermath as if they were tea leaves -- mining for reasons to be afraid, very afraid.

Then they prattle on with some combination of defeatist euphemisms -- with no connection to reality or anything "known" -- obviously trying to convince themselves of something. In that regard, this paragraph bear repeating as a classic display of impeachophobic dementia:

If the votes were even possible, I'd like to have seen bush impeached and convicted years ago. It is an act of utility at this point, and why even bother. Our case should be to keep fire on the D's until they grow a spine and tell the R's, to simple screw off, and nothing they put forward is going through, just as they did to us for years. Investigate the hell out of the GOP and the administration, and set the stage to where they won't have any power for a generation.

"Everybody knows" it's not even "possible" to get "the votes" -- even though not a single specific charge has been lodged. Not a single official has refused to support a charge on its merits. And on a possible torture charge, the only evidence available suggests that we already DO have the votes.

"Everybody knows" we just have to "tell the R's to screw off" -- even though we've seen time and again how this regime ignores Congress and the courts entirely. And when he actually writes "screw off back" into the Signing Statement, what's our next false move?

Besides "everybody knows" we're really impeachment supporters -- just not now because it's too early or too late (actually both). We "know" we haven't "investigated" enough to impeach yet -- even though the crimes are admitted and defended by the regime. And we "know" impeachment would take so long that, well um ... (someone would sound a buzzer?!?) -- what exactly? Less non-binding resolutions, less permission slips to bomb Iran (or Syria or Lebanon), less vacations, less whining over moveon.org or Rush?

Oh right, "everybody knows" we just have to "set the stage" and the cargo plane of benefits will be coming over the horizon any day now. Even though while we're staging one more "terrorist attack" or "war of honor" could well make the current technical state of fascism permanent.

But even if we must act, we can't now. We need to keep our powder dry while we herd our cats into full agreement on "a plan besides just get up and go, even that would take months to accomplish."

Enough. A bit of real realism.

No, we don't "need a movement." We just need to move. There is nothing to "investigate." There is no moral justification to remain complicit with torture and war crimes for a single day. There is no political benefit or risk to our side that is worthy of consideration -- that is the key symptom of impeachophobia (and of a once-great, ailing nation).

Formally objecting to torture and war crimes -- and the crimes against our preterit Constitution -- by the only substantive, historically valid, means available is by far the best use of time imaginable -- even if it's on the last day of squatting by this never-elected, never-legitimate regime -- even if the objection is scuttled by craven DC Dems in the House or Senatorial Co-Conspirators.

Only Impeachment... is a substantive act. The ONLY thing that actually DOES anything.

It is the rest of the DC Dems' masturbatory activity that is the "waste of time," the "act of futility," that which isn't worth anyone's "bother." And that's what the polls are showing -- the public/electorate's refusal to bother with the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy's beltway-bubble baloney.

Impeachment is our ONLY moral, patriotic (and legal, legislative, electoral, diplomatic...) option.

--

[babylonsister]

169. What a great post, Senator!

:patriot: :thumbsup:

[BootinUp]

186. I appreciate your effort,

but there are many holes the size of Jupiter in your rant.

[rasputin1952]

209. So there are 66 Senators that would vote to convict?

Please.

It is an act of futility at this time. Whether you like to admit that or not, is your option, it isn't going to happen.

A tremendous amount of bandwidth has been used up discussing this situation, and nothing has been done, simply because those of us who DO have a knowledge of politics realize it cannot come to fruition.

THere are problems that can be dealt with, there are situations that can be corrected, but there are some out there who live under the illusion that impeachment is the only answer. It is one if many, and other "answers" are far more feasible than creating another circus that would not do anything.

Just out of curiosity, does your username declare you to be some sort of state or US senator, or a Roman senator, one of those who thought that the expedient to to change power was to just kill off the opposition?

I have been politically active for some 40+ years, and I understand most of the processes involved in US politics. I know it takes time to accomplish most things, I know that trying to manage 535 members of the House is a horrific task. I know that many D's have never been to a ward meeting, Town Hall meeting, looked at or become a part of the process on state and district aspects of the process. Most people don't even understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. While opinions are valid, and many of them are pretty damn good, few people understand how to get those opinions and ideas into the stream.

Simply put, there are not 66, 67, 60, or even 55 Senators that would vote to convict...the issue dies with the #'s.

[Senator]

240. Yes, that's exactly what the evidence indicates.

That while everyone in DC is happy to cower behind the "impossibility" of facing reality, when faced with real choice -- with the world, history, and their families and constituents watching -- 90 US Senators refused to support and defend war crimes, and would likely make the same choice again.

And whether you like to admit it or not, stringing together irrelevant euphemistic phrases like "act of futility at this time," "isn't going to happen," "tremendous amount of bandwidth," "cannot come to fruition" and "creating a circus that would not do anything," is much more about your own opinion than mine.

No, under "Rule By Signing Statement" there are NO "problems that can be dealt with," "situations that can be corrected," "many, and other 'answers' are far more feasible." Absolutely none. Feel free to provide an example of something this lawless regime would back down on to any degree.

Just out of curiosity, does your interest in my username declare you to be someone who resorts to attacking the messenger because they are unable to deal with the reality of the message?

But have you not learned in your "some 40+ years" that while "trying to manage 535 members of the House" may well be "horrific," that the reality of this "task" is far less than half that (partially because there are only 435 members)? Or have you not noticed that while you sat in meetings, happy to have "looked at ... aspects of the process," we already have the Speaker of the House on the public defensive about their failure to impeach -- indicating that the idea has been well "into the stream" for months now?

Simply put -- even for the "results-obsessed" -- there may well be 67 Senators that would vote to convict. But even 55 would be a moral, political victory of historic proportions for the American People -- one that would far more likely end in resignations than a public vote/rebuke.

--

[rasputin1952]

241. I stand corrected, there are 435 members of the House...

my appologes for adding the Senate.

In any case, there are not 66 Senators that would vote for conviction, if there were, things might be considerably different.

As I saud, this is, at thi point, a waste of time,or "act of futtility". Kindlyu link to the evdence of those tose Senators you believe would vote for conviction.

[Senator]

244. No, as you said, you sit corrected...

...and apparently failed to follow the link to the 90-9 Senate Anti-Torture vote, that was negated (impeachably) by Rule By Signing Statement.

Still, things can become "considerably different" in no time at all.

---

[rhett o rick]

205. So you are saying is be patient and hope Bush will be gone in a year?

In the meantime he is committing irreparable damage to our democracy. We may soon reach the point of no return if we haven't already. Not to mention the troops that will die while we wait. Before he is gone, he may involve us in a horrible larger war. Don't forget Russia is just waiting in the wings. Bush and Cheney are criminals and need to be prosecuted immediately. Granted the republicans won't let it happen, but we must try. Force the damn republicans to defend them. It will be something to hold against them forever. But to give up w/o a fight is not for me. Win or loose i want impeachment. I hope you have a plan in place if Bush/Cheney decide to stay longer than 2008.

[cuke]

153. Barney Frank is a good man

and a smart one too

[Usrename]

154. I've always liked Frank, but I'm not too sure he has thought this through.

And I'll be the first to welcome you to DU!

[cuke]

155. Thank you

Glad to make your acquaintance

[liberation]

190. Yes, by pissing off some of his supporters by trying to appease his antagonizers who loathe him

no matter what. Amazing political acumen.

Almost en par with Pelosi's saying how impeachment is off the table and the Bush's are decent and patriotic role model-material Americans. Two things that she did not need to say, and that pretty much painted her in a corner where she can't maneuver off and which gives carte blanche to the administration she is supposed to oppose. And who can forget Reid's flip flop allnighter waste of time... all Bush had to do was to hold his breath and he caved in faster than a butter wall in a sunny day.

But hey, I am pretty sure this is part of their super duper double secret master plan to put the GOP exactly where they want to right. By giving exactly everything the GOP wants, it is sure that we will "win."


And a lot of morons seem to believe that. I for one am tired of being taken on the proverbial ride...

The problem is this: Franks et al have the gall to accuse us who want this cabal of degenerate war monger perverts to be impeached of not understanding the reality of the process. We sure understand it, we also know that is HARD. And that it requires them Dems to do their JOB and build a fucking case, in such a way that it would be a liability for any GOPer to stay behind these bastards. But that requires effort, and it is easier to play dead and wait until the next election, right?

Guess what... fuck that. Lazy and weak ain't my cup of tea. Do your job or shut up, and I would appreciate it if the Dem leadership would quit blaming me and trying to insult my intelligence.

[cuke]

202. Pelosi, Frank, and Reid will all be re-elected

.

[pat_k]

212. All the more reason to intervene and attempt to save him. . .

. . .from going down the path of destruction.

And failing to impeach IS the path of destruction. He, like so many others who are victims of the impeachophobia that has infected the Democratic cacaus, is allowing everything he ever fought for to be destroyed. Attempting to save them from themselves by pushing them to stand and defend the nation against the attack bushncheney are waging on the Constitution is the act of a true friend. If, in the end, we are unable to wake them up to their duty, history will not look kindly on the Congressional leadership that surrended the nation to fascism without a fight.

[AntiFascist]

156. We're certainly not in Kansas anymore...

how many Members of Congress are profitting from the crimes of the Administration?

[Baby Snooks]

164. What troubles me...

What troubles me are representatives who no longer represent the people who elected them. Right. Left. Center. Whatever.

What troubles me most, however, are Democrats in Congress who believe they don't have the votes to pass something in Congress so why bother? How about sending a message?

What troubles me most, however, are Democrats in Congress who believe they have a crystal ball and know how Republicans will vote. How about finding out?

What really sends me up the wall are Democrats in Congress who believe Democrats at home are stupid flag-wavers like Republicans who will just believe whatever they are told and keep waving their flags and supporting their party. You can support the party without supporting the politician. Something some Democrats really do need to finally understand.

Want to visualize impeachment? Better visualize starting with Pelosi and continuing on until the only two people left in Washington are Bush and Cheney.

[Cha]

167. So is nancy ..Margaret

Hamilton, the bad witch?

[bbgrunt]

170. it's really a shame that so many here put

party expediency ahead of the good of the country. Without impeachment now there will be nothing to hold the power of the dems in check if and when they do take power. But then, one must wonder WHY the repukes are not peeling off the b***party discipline like an old sunburn---is it because they know that there will be NO change of power in 2008?

Impeachment is the ONLY way to get our country back.

[rhett o rick]

178. Impeachment is not the only way. Revolution is a way. But impeachment is the lawful way

and we should pursue that. If we don't impeach we tell the criminals that they got away with it. Nothing is more important than the reestablishment of democracy and our Constitution. Impeachment, win or lose, is the first step. If we fail, we fail but lets go down fighting. Our forefather would be ashamed of those that are afraid to fight for what is right because they might fail. Our forefathers fought against great odds, so should we.

[rhett o rick]

179. With 70% in favor of impeachment how can Congress ignore us?

Rhetorical question.

[onenote]

259. Link for the 70% in favor claim?

[mike_c]

180. smoke screen-- are Franks and Pelosi really this dumb or do they think we are...?

The purpose of bringing articles of impeachment is to MAKE THE CASE for removing the president from office. Making assumptions about how the senate will vote presumes that either there is no case to be made, or republican senators will not vote to convict no matter what crimes the administration can be shown to have committed. Think about that. Franks is saying-- and Pelosi evidently agrees-- that compelling evidence for presidential crimes will be ignored, NO MATTER WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE. If this is true, the republic is already lost.

[liberation]

185. tsssszzzz... but if we seat really quiet and pretend nothing is wrong, maybe our...

...precious Hillary will win the presidency. After all nothing is more important than the possibility of wining the general election.

And to do so, what better strategy than to antagonize the voting block that may consider voting for you by appeasing the voting block that would rather stick needles into their collective scrotums than vote for you. GENIUS, I tell you GENIUS!!!!!

Pelosi and the rest of the Dems are dead in the water. I am getting tons of popcorn ready to see the look in their faces and whatever apologist crap these appeasers come up with to justify their electoral loss. Because GOPers will vote, that is for sure...

I will not waste my time with the Dem electoral machine any more... and all the apologist crap is starting to insult my intelligence.

[creeksneakers2]

191. Votes would more likely come from independents and

moderates than instant impeachment activists.

[liberation]

192. That is right, that is why the Dems won the last two presidential elections in a landslide and...

Oh, wait....

[creeksneakers2]

194. Democrats would have won in 2000

if the far left would have helped.

[mike_c]

215. you mean the left that democrats keep screwing...?

And oh, yeah, it's so much better when dems do it.

[pat_k]

211. The is precisely what they are saying. . .

It's like a prosecutor with an irrefutable case refusing to prosecute a lynch mob because he "knows" a racist jury will acquit. By refusing to prosecute, that prosecutor gives the lynch mob cover. The murderers get to say "Hey, we're innocent. There's no case. If there was, we'd be charged."

The oath to "seek justice" mandates prosecution when the evidence is overwhelming. If a corrupt jury acquits, they expose themselves for what they are. That is FAR better than giving the criminals cover.

And, when a President and VP commit intolerable crimes against the Constitution in plain sight, the Congressional oath to "support and defend" mandates impeachment to remove the threat. Bushncheney are http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/25">committing their crimes in plain sight. There is no rational defense. As I tried to point out in my original post, it doesn't matter if too many of Bush and Cheney's minions in the House or Senate refuse to bring charges or declare them guilty. Forcing Members of Congress to take sides -- to declare themselves for American principle or Fascist principle -- exposes them. The American people will stand in judgment of them in the next election.

The Constitution -- amended and entrusted to us to protect and perfect as we strive to "form a more perfect union" -- calls on us to put our trust in our fellow Americans (you know, "We the People"). If we aren't willing to do that, how can we claim to stand for true American values?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/22">Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. (With the emphasis on "open."). Surrendering your property to squatters without a fight is insanity, but that insanity doesn't compare to the magnitude of the insanity of surrendering a nation without a fight. But that is precisely what Members of Congress are doing when they say that the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney can't, won't, or shouldn't happen.

I am mystified by those who take offense when we point out the grave mistake that Pelosi, Conyers, Franks, and other Members are making. When you see a friend on the course of destruction, doesn't a true friend step in and point it out, however painful it may be? These men and women have stood as our champions in the past, but everything they ever fought for is being destroyed before our eyes -- and they are enabling the destruction by refusing to impeach. I for one will continue to do everything in my power to save them from making this monumental mistake.

[Whisp]

182. I have some adjectives for Pelosi

but 'witch' isn't in it. (an assault to wiccans and women).
that magic wand thing...

[creeksneakers2]

193. The Internet could be a great new asset to Democracy

The left never had such a powerful tool. But,extremists are destroying the influence gained by pushing away all the best allies.

Who have the impeachment folks gone after hardest? Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers, two allies of the left.

More moderate members of Congress will see how Pelosi and Conyers are treated and won't risk getting involved with the net. They'll see the extremists as representative. Who wants Code Pink in their yard for five months?

Karl Rove couldn't find a better way to thwart the new power of the grass roots left.

[BootinUp]

196. So true, a Rep from San Fran ain't good enough

you nailed it.

[SergeyDovlatov]

213. Lier!!! A simple majority in the house or 41 vote in the senate is enough to stop the war

Why media is not calling them on those lies?

I heard yesterday on NPR a discussion and their washington correspondent was perpetuating the lie that they need to have 60 votes in Senate to stop the war.

Absolutely disgusting!!!!

Journalists are as responsible for precipitation of Iraq war and its continuation as Bush administration and spineless Congress

[pat_k]

217. Sure, 41 could withhold funds, but bushncheney would just raid the treasury

. . .for the funds, and "stay the course" regardless.

Of course you're right. After Bush vetoed the bill they passed they could have filibustered the passage of any other bill. They could have re-passed the same bill. The failure of so-called "political analysts" to point out the obvious options is intolerable.

But unfortunately, even if the pund-idiots had covered the Congressional options, they would still be evading the reality of our national predicament. Even if the Senate managed to pass a bill defunding combat operations with more than 90 votes, it would have about as much impact on the occupation as McCain's anti-torture amendment (passed 90-9) had on bushncheney's torture program.

Impeachment is the ONLY weapon in the Congressional arsenal capable of stopping officials who have no qualms about openly violating our laws and inviolate principles.

The lies that knocked me out were the countless variations on "the only way they can 'force' bush to change course is through the power of the purse." It's as the pund-idiots think Pelosi's 'off the table' edict actually removed the power to impeach from the Constitution. It's as if they actually believe that passing more laws can 'force' proven lawbreakers to do anything they don't wnat to. The failure of ANYBODY in the mainstream -- not even Olbermann -- to call out these lies drove me to distraction.

The other one is the "co-equal branches" crap. The branches ARE NOT "co-equal." We made Congress supreme with the power to impeach and remove officials in the executive and judiciary. Removal from power trumps withholding cash. It is the power to impeach that is of absolute necessity in a government of, by, and for, the people. If we are to maintain our sovereign authority over the officials we charge with executing and enforcing our laws, we must have the ability remove them from power at ANY point in their term of office.

Pelosi's "pledge" that impeachment would be "off the table" was a reprehensible attempt to take our ability to assert our sovereign authority from us. Now she, joined by Rep. Frank and many others, aren't jsut saying "We WON"T impeach;" they are saying "We CAN'T impeach. We don't have the votes. We are impotent." They are telling the nation "The game is rigged and we're too afraid of losing to fight. Nothing you people out there can do can change anything. Go back to bed America."

A vast majority of the electorate -- Republicans included -- are angry at bushncheney. And more Americans are waking up to the horror of our national predicament every day. All that anger is seeking an outlet.

Instead of tapping into the passion and energy, the Democrats are doing everything in their power to SUPPRESS IT. The endless declarations of powerlessness raining down from our "leaders" are pushing angry Americans into helpless silence and apathy. As the Democratic Party once again confirms the "weak Dem" image, those who haven't been silenced are finding that their anger at bushncheney is fast being matched by disdain for Democrats.

Contrary to what some others in this discussion have asserted, the fight to impeach IS NOT a "waste of time." Impeachment is the only thing that IS NOT a waste of time. We are a nation held hostage. Impeachment is the only means by which we can escape. It is the only thing worth fighting for. All else is just spitting in the wind.

If the Congressional leadership stood up and declared to the American people "WE HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THIS. We can impeach and remove them! And YOU can make it happen!" it would be body blow to the fascists. Victory is not just possible, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3607151 ">it is probable. But even if a vote on a bill of impeachment lost in the House or Senate, the fight itself gives Americans who are angry at Bush a way to express their anger. Instead of alienating and earning the disdain of the public, the Party would be engaging them. And each person engaged is more likely to stay in the fight and make it possible for us to win future victories against the fascists.

The way to truly "accomplish things for the American people" is to ENGAGE the American people in accomplishing things for themselves.

If the leadership takes up the fight to remove bushncheney from office, they wouldn't just be doing the right thing -- fulfilling their oath; fighting to rescue the Constitution; strengthening our democracy by engaging more of the electorate -- they'd be doing the WINNING thing. The entire Party would reap the political benefits that go with such demonstrations of fortitude and commitment to principle.

[CreekDog]

237. Don't the rules say something about "Lier" -sic-

[SergeyDovlatov]

214. Lier!!! A simple majority in the house or 41 vote in the senate is enough to stop the war

Why media is not calling them on those lies?

I heard yesterday on NPR a discussion and their washington correspondent was perpetuating the lie that they need to have 60 votes in Senate to stop the war.

Absolutely disgusting!!!!

Journalists are as responsible for precipitation of Iraq war and its continuation as Bush administration and spineless Congress

[CreekDog]

227. Barney spoke truth to no power

Votes are not there, not close to being there.

[Freddie Stubbs]

255. Many people only want to hear the truth when it validates their beliefs

[CreekDog]

264. Please say more, I'm interested in where you are going with that comment

Thanks.

[Kurovski]

247. So then, does he have NO PROBLEM with people on the right calling for IMPEACHMENT?

John Dean comes to mind as an early and consistent promoter of impeachment as remedy.

This is troubling to me. Why would Frank want to brand impeachment as a "Leftist" thing?

[DemBones DemBones]

249. Barney, Barney, I'm beginning to wonder about you.

Remember how he got all pissed off about being invited on the Daily Show for one of those get-to-know-a Congressperson segments?

It's on the Comedy Channel but he somehow didn't know it was going to be different from the usual interview.

:shrug:

[pat_k]

271. And he's been down this road. Back in the 100th Congress. . .

. . .he was singing the same old "Impeachment would be a disaster" song. In 1986 they were so sure the White House was theirs for the taking as long as they didn't get "too prosecutorial." They just needed to lay law and and let the Republicans take themselves down. And we all know what happened. Their moral cowardice gave us "41" and set the stage for the horrors of "43."

Almost everything they are saying today is an echo of what they were saying back then. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3607226">Post #177)

Things are so bad that there are more officials from Nixon's, Reagan's and 41's administartions calling for 43's head than we have in the 110th Congress.

How many more devastating political losses is it going to take before they think: "Hmmm. Perhaps rolling over is political suicide?" Maybe we should take a shot at standing up for a change?"

[Freddie Stubbs]

254. You are assuming that 218 Representatives would vote to impeach

Will every Democrat stand up and oppose Bush on this? Consider the outcome of the FISA vote and the MoveOn.org vote.

[pat_k]

269. No. I merely challenge Barney's absolute "knowledge" that they WON'T

In other replies I point out that, when forced to vote, 218 or more are unlikely vote to defend indefensible notions like:

• "The laws we pass don't apply to the person charged with executing those laws.
• "Bush declared himself immune from McCain's anti-torture amendment in a signing statement, so it's ok by us that he blatantly violates it."
• "Yeah, 90 Senators voted for McCain's anti-torture amendment, but they/we really didn't mean it."
• "Ok. So they lied to us and didn't actually close Cheney's http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001631.php">cloak and dagger dungeons. It's ok by us that they've made the USA a war criminal nation."
• "waterboarding doesn't violate our commitment under Geneva to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their persons." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881_pf.html">War Crimes and the White House)
• "Sure the Supreme Court ruled that Geneva applied to Gitmo, and therefore that bushncheney had already committed three years of war crimes, but they told us they stopped their violations. Opps. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html">Turns out they didn't. Oh well.

Even Rep. Jame Harman, not exactly a maverick, apparently agrees.

On Countdown w/Keith Olbermann, 9/25 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20993592/">transcript):

Harman: I actually find that quite incredible, given the fact that, at will over most of the last five or six years, the administration hasn‘t followed FISA
or all the FISA. They admit that. . .

What‘s broken is the view of executive power that some hold in the administration. They claim it trumps all laws and our Constitution. And I can‘t believe that anyone around here would be so short-sighted as to buy that. . .,

Although some Members may seem to fall short in the "humanity" department, they are nevertheless "anyones" who are, at least from Jane Harman's perspective, "around here."

Sure, Blue Dog Dems and the Republicans may vote against Articles that charge bushnchcney with tresspassing on forbidden ground to turn Americans into torturers who spy on their fellow citizens, but given the insanity of the defense, and the consequences of voting to uphold torture and an all powerful executive, it is possible, perhaps even probable, that bushncheney will be unable to find 218 willing to go on the line to save their asses. I've also pointed out that, if Articles do go to the Senate, we could see Republicans marching up to the Hill to pressure bushnchcney to resign and spare them from being forced to cast a "damned if you do" (defend the indefensible) or "damned if you don't" (hand the WH keys to Pelosi) vote.

I've concluded that resignation is more likely than removal, but unlike many of the "Don't have the votes" people, I know that anything is possible: Articles may or may not get voted out of the House; a super-majority in the Senate may or may not vote to remove; Repubilcans may force bushnchcney to resign in favor of Danforth (or some other palatable Republican the House and Senate would immedidately confirm). I -- and many others in this discussion -- also point out that, whatever the outcome, impeachment is a moral imperative. We challenge the hysterical, and irrational, calls of "political suicide."

Maybe all those Democratic consultants got their hands on a "new and improved" crystal ball that shows them where all the roads they warn against lead, but as long as those roads remain untraveled, we can't "test" them. Given the disturbing frequency with which their conclusions have proven to be the opposite of reality, they should have been run out of town on rails long ago. Brilliant proclaimations like:

• "Reagan and Poppy Bush are too weakened by Iran-Contra to oppose us. Impeaching Reagan or Poppy would be a disaster. Just stand back and let them bring themselves down. The White House will be ours in 1988 if we as long as we don't seem 'too prosecutorial' (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3604951&mesg_id=3607226">"Risks to Dems," 1986)
• "Shrub is toast; he's too weakened to oppose us."
• "We can't impeach because it would distract from all the wonderful things we're going to do."
• "We can't impeach, we will stop the war instead."

.