Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable

[Freddie Stubbs]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

The term for Bush and Cheney ends on Jan. 20, 2009. Bush cannot constitutionally run for a third term, and Cheney has said he will not run to succeed Bush.

more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm?csp=34

[democrattotheend]

1. Vote the bums out

Somehow I'm having a hard time picturing Obama saying this. Still, I think it's the right response. Impeachment does not make sense at this point.

[VeraAgnes]

30. OMG! Are you visiting the Twilight Zone?

Obama needs to clarify this if at all possible. :scared:

Impeachment of these Criminals will be the only way to cleanse the White House!

Obama can't want to enter a cursed house!:wow:

[democrattotheend]

36. You do realize that coming out for impeachment would be the end of his campaign

Even my far-left grandparents who love Dennis Kucinich don't support it. Obama is absolutely right...we need to focus on winning the next election, not impeaching Bush and Cheney for the last few months they're in office. I'd rather have Obama as president for 4 years than have Pelosi as president for a few months (much as I love her) and then McCain for 4 years.

[VeraAgnes]

51. Absolutely not.....

Also, we have been working on Impeachment for 5 years! Obama can not cherry-pick issues just to win.........He needs to lead the Party! He is applying for a job....I'm not about to stop my party activity and activism because Obama can't handle impeachment. DU has a Greatest Thread on this too.......266 rec's so far!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3414418&mesg_id=3414418


Obama needs to act Presidential and deal with a primary goal of all Progressive Democrats!

[democrattotheend]

54. Most of the party opposes impeachment

And I'm not saying you should stop your activity...just that you shouldn't expect Obama to support it.

By the way, I don't think impeachment is the primary goal of ALL progressive Democrats. I'm a progressive Democrat, and I have a lot of things that are higher on my wishlist than impeaching a president who will be out of office in 6 months anyway.

[VeraAgnes]

62. I have to give Obama credit for being honest

about sharing this view now.....it should of been 3-4 months ago. Too bad no one asked him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. He answered this question almost a year ago

[Hansel]

109. As opposed to a year ago when this article was published? nt

[mckeown1128]

173. lol.... epic Obama-smear-attempt FAILURE...lol nt

[Andrea]

204. What do you mean?

The poster is simply stating the truth, this article is from June 28, 2007.

[Life Long Dem]

176. As opposed to voting the bum out, so you would elect him.

:bounce: Feel the bounce McSame?

[JTFrog]

184. Hmm, that looks a lot like someone's ass showing there. n/t

[Andrea]

203. This was almost a YEAR ago

Too bad no one paid attention.

[Patchuli]

94. This isn't just about punishing * & Cheney

It's about restoring the rule of law and showing the world that criminals don't get away with crimes in our government. Constitutionally, it is the proper thing to do in light of the heinousness of *co's crimes.

[JDPriestly]

145. It is also about disowning Bush, making sure that he cannot

banter around the country and the world after he is out and boast about having been the president. Can you imagine that?

[Patchuli]

154. No I can't

It would be a travesty...

[TexanDem]

175. Big disappointment in Obama over this. It's abt JUSTICE!! >

Nancy and a large majority of the Dems have been spineless about this! Nancy had a mandate for sure in '06. It looks like Obama won't have the stomach to stand up to the Bush-its either. I'll still support him -- but I definitely think he's wrong about this one! I can see how he would not want to get into it while campaigning, but he could have worded himself with his famous non-committal rhetoric.

[Andrea]

207. You make an important point

One can support a candidate without agreeing with him/her on every point. In fact, that is the norm.

[Mike Daniels]

214. Where do you get a mandate for impeachment in 2006?

Most polls indicate that people were not expressing demand for impeachment in 2006. That's a fantasy that people who wanted impeachment have tried to push again and again.

The majority of people were arguably looking for some sort of change in strategy to the Iraq war (not necessarily complete withdrawal - another self-created fantasy).

The Dem Congress undoubtedly failed to provide that change but they were definitely not told to proceed with impeaching the president by a majority of voters.

[Andrea]

206. It is a sickening thought. n/t

[Andrea]

205. YES

Exactly!

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. Obama has not been working on impeachment for five years

Its no accident that Obama won the nomination rather than Kucinich.

[JDPriestly]

95. It is downright cowardly of Obama.

My confidence in Obama's judgment just went down about 50%. Bye, bye any chance to win the November election.

If Obama does not have the courage to impeach the criminals that run the Bush administration, how can he defend the American people against the criminals that want to run the world?

Disheartened is not a word for my feelings. Disgust is.

How can Obama claim he will enforce the Constitution if he does not have the stomach for impeachment proceedings against a man who has violated our rights day after day and continues to violate them?

Obama should have said nothing. That would have been the wisest course.

The question must be asked: Is Obama in a sense making a deal with the criminals in the Republican Party? Is he sort of suggesting, look, we'll let you get by with your crimes and we won't impeach you if you let us get by with our own hanky-panky when we are in office?

The Republicans are going to paint Obama as the picture of corruption during this election based on his Chicago friends. They are already doing it. Obama is going to have a problem with here, especially given that much of the racial prejudice in the U.S. takes the form of stereotyping people of color as "criminals."

This statement makes Obama complicit with the crimes of the Bush administration. He should denounce them. He should simply state that he will support the majority of Congress in whatever it decides on impeachment. That leaves it up to others who are not in a position to trade the ignoring of their crimes and diminishment of the likelihood for impeachment to decide on the impeachment of Bush.

Huge mistake on Obama's part to take any stance on this issue at all. Huge mistake!!!!

[LibraLiz1973]

160. BINGO JD.

[Andrea]

210. I agree with most of what you said here, definitely, except

that he said this a year ago. At that time, he needed to be answering as a member of the Senate. He was not a presumptive nominee at that point. He was saying exactly what you say he was saying, but he was not in a position as a Senator to duck the issue.

You are absolutely correct that this is going to hurt Obama in the election. It has already hurt him with the left wing of the party. Many independents are more to the left than a lot of Democrats.

[Two Americas]

133. nothing would ever happen

If we can only advocate that which the public already supports, nothing would ever change. If winning office requires abandoning the whole purpose for winning the office to begin with, then we have gained nothing.

You can't be for change, and then not advocate changes. That would be "the same" with a "change" label slapped on it for show.

If we cannot make the case for holding the administration accountable for their crimes, what can we accomplish?

If supporting a politician does not result in advocacy for new policies, then why support them? If prosecuting high crimes and treason by the previous administration is not the main reason for supporting the Democrats, then what is?

If we are not opposed to treason, what is it exactly that we stand for?

[windbreeze]

139. Didn't he already say he intended to investigate anything that even

smells a little bit like wrongdoing from this administration??? wb

[Andrea]

212. He said he "intended to investigate" recently.

He said he was against impeachment a year ago. I would like to see him make a statement that he disavows his earlier statement and intends to do more than investigate; that he intends to investigate fully and he intends to act on the findings of the investigations.

But then again, I'd like a lot of things.

[Andrea]

211. Nothing

"If we are not opposed to treason, what is it exactly that we stand for?"

We stand for nothing.

[Buzz Clik]

138. Are you nucking futz? Look what it did for Kucinich's presidential aspirations!

[JDPriestly]

147. Kucinich gained support by his stance on impeachment.

He was not favored for other reasons some of which are very superficial and some of which are due to the fact that the MSM ignored him as it did Edwards and other candidates.

[Andrea]

213. Right, and we definitely feel that we should make

important decisions based on how it will benefit us rather than on a moral or ethical basis, right?

[PoliticalAmazon]

218. Kucinich and Wexler pushing for impeachment is to sooth the Dem Party....

liberal base, many of whom are very resentful that the Dems in Congress have done zip to impeach Bush.

I don't think impeachment going forward would help Obama's campaign.

I'm disappointed in the lack of Obama's support of impeachment prior to his candidacy for the Democratic Party primary. I know there were problems with it, but it was the right thing to do, and getting rid of Bush and Cheney would likely have saved our country a great deal of damage.

But that's just my opinion.

[JDPriestly]

88. I strongly disagree with Obama although I understand why he has to say

this.

The Bush administration has committed atrocious crimes and will probably commit many more before Bush finally, finally leaves office. And what if McCain is elected. Has Obama thought about that? Then the robbery and murder of the Bush administration will be covered up forever and yet another criminal regime will grab power by bribing voters with promises of tax breaks only to enrich themselves at the public trough.

No! We need impeachment and we need it now.

[Andrea]

215. You are exactly right -

What if McCain is elected? What then? They walk away with complete freedom and the next criminal administration continues the same crime spree.

[Andrea]

200. I can't follow you

This administration has committed war crimes, as well as treason. How would impeachment "not make sense at this point"? Were the Nuremberg Trials non-sensical since the war was over?

[MadBadger]

2. Of course he's against Impeachment. Impeachmen is politically stupid.

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. Freudian slip? ImpeachTWOmen...Dick and Bush....NT

[VeraAgnes]

53. Oh yea..........

Well tell that to the PDA; Progressive Democrats of America; Congressman John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Cindy Sheehan and all the family members of list soldiers form an illegal war for profit and ego.

Tell the DU members on this thread too!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3414418&mesg_id=3414418

[lumpy]

77. Obama says that impeachment should be reserved for "grave,

grave breaches" of and intentional breaches of the president's authority. I guess Obama doesn't believe Bush qualifies under those terms. I think unwillingness to support impeachment is sending the wrong message that any future presidents can get away with the grave breaches committed by Bush and Cheney. In spite of the majority of Americans wanting Bush to be admonished by this means, it is apparent that Obama will continue to go along with the majority of gutless congressmen who are in fear of jeopardizing their political careers. And I, for one, am sick and tired of the excuse that it would be time consuming and 'oh what the hell, Bush'll be out in a few months'.

[az chela]

90. Jesus christ what the hell do you think are grave breaches

That is beyond stupid

[lumpy]

111. You'll have to ask Obama what he believes are grave

breaches since he used the term to describe what he considers impeachable offenses. If you ask me I believe deceiving/lying to the American people about the necessity of invading Iraq is impeachable.I can only assume Obama doesn't consider that impeachable.

[Bluenorthwest]

193. In short

Obama says wars of aggression deserve no punishment, but a guy growing a pot plant should rot in prison. Shoplift dinner and sit in prison, start a war, go skiing in Jackson Hole.

[MarjorieG]

98. Always been a fine, fuzzy line at misled, knowingly lied. Forethought always hard to prove.

If we'd had a press, the illegalities and gravity would have been known, maybe thwarted, and we'd have had serious investigations earlier under oath.

[Andrea]

217. Not too hard to prove.

The Downing Street Memos. Need I say more?

And the war is far from the only crime * has committed.

Let's look at treason - he's shredded the constitution, which he referred to as "that damn piece of paper". How about the signing statements? How about Valerie Plame? Guantanomo? Abu Ghraib? Stolen elections?

Don't blame it on the press - you can lay this right at the feet of the Congress.



edited for punctuation

[JDPriestly]

148. Authorizing torture, Guantanamo and violation of FISA, just

to name a couple of Bush's violations of law and the Constitution aren't bad enough? Then what is?

I cannot believe that Obama said this. I just can't get over it.

What kind of "change" is he proposing?

[LibraLiz1973]

161. I wonder if he thinks Clinton getting a blow job was a grave breach that warranted impeachment?

I've said it before & I'll say again. The reason we Democrats consistently lose Elections is because we pussy out.
Republicans are like rabid dogs & we're trying to deal with them using reason.
It clearly does not work.

[MadBadger]

86. Are any of them running for President?

It may not be politically stupid for them to, but for Obama it is political suicide.

[JDPriestly]

96. Impeachment is necessary to the future of our country.

The damage that Bush has done to the American people and to our constitutional form of government are so grave that we will not survive as a democracy/republic unless Bush is impeached.

[MadBadger]

115. Well, I'm glad that you arent a political strategist for the Campaign

Because you would guarantee a Republican victory in the fall.

[JDPriestly]

119. Actually, Obama just insured that victory.

How can he point to the terrible crimes of the Bush administration if he has not supported the constitutional procedure for dealing with those crimes?

He not only looks lazy and self-interested, but also weak, lacking in integrity of purpose and COMPLICIT in Bush's crimes.

As I said before, he should have simply said that it is inappropriate for a candidate for the presidency to voice an opinion on the impeachment of the sitting president because that is the responsibility of Congress. Even though he is currently a member of Congress, his stating that he will not support impeachment makes him look like he is making a deal just in case someone ever finds grounds to impeach him. This is really wormy conduct on Obama's part.

I was an Edwards supporter. I stayed neutral once Edwards dropped out. I am really furious that Obama does not have better strategists on his team.

And trust me, I know how to fight and argue. I know how to strategize. That is my profession.

[Ravy]

143. A Senator should not take a stand on impeachment. It is a matter for the House,

and that is what Obama should say. If they impeach, then he is essentially to become a jurist and listen to the evidence and make up his mind about a conviction. Until an impeachment, he doesn't have even a clue what charges might be brought, so any judgement he could make at this time is purely a political judgement... something that should not come into play at all in the Senate.

[JDPriestly]

165. You are correct. Either he should support it or remain silent.

Remaining silent is preferable. He never should have said anything. He should allow the House to do what the representatives believe is right. It should not be a partisan matter. It has nothing to do with elections. It has to do with protecting the Constitution and the law.

[Two Americas]

140. if we go by that measurement

If we use those standards, everything the people need is "politically stupid." Why bother saying we support democracy or the Constitution if political expediency trumps everything, and without those, what do we have worth fighting for?

[Zhade]

169. Yeah, we should always let criminals walk!

Such cowardice.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. Obama is my candidate...but I disagree with him. Not impeaching is not acceptable.

The problem is that Obama's victory is not a sure thing - and if it is McCain, it will just be more of the same. Start the clean up and clean out now!

[still_one]

10. Impeachment won't do anything, and in fact it may result in a pardon, like libby which would

serve no purpose

However, once they are out of office, that is a different story

I would also have a different opinion if there was two more years left in their term

It won't do anything

but once they no longer in office, that is when we go after them

[lumpy]

79. Impeachment would send the message that wanta' be dictators

and their lies are not acceptable by US citizens. Time or the possibility of pardon should not be a factor in determining whether Bush should be admonished by means of impeachment. Nothing will be done once Bush is out of office. There would always be an excuse for not pursuing justice.

[dixiegrrrrl]

80. Please X-plain that to me

If none of the Congress critters who took an oath to defend the Constitution are willing to use legal tools against the Prez.'s 35 and counting acts of illegal behavior, than why would they be motivated to "go after them" once he and some of them are not in office?

He is taking a huge crap on the Constitution while in office..so out of office suddenly people will be more interested in doing.....what, exactly?

What am I missing here ??

(Besides my Constitutional rights, job, health care and peace of mind?)

[still_one]

131. First of all the House impeaches, NOT THE SENATE. Second, if they wanted to do it

they should have done it 2 or more years ago

Doing it now will only distract from the campaign

The ONLY thing impeachment does is remove him from office, NOTHING else

Not only won't they have enough time now, but you would have to do a double impeachment, because one would pardon another, and then it would be for nothing. In addition, they will play the nixon game, agnew resigns, and a new vp is appointed, so if the impeachment went through the new vp would pardon them

This has nothing to do with take a crap on the Constitution, they already did that when they voted for the patriot act and the IWR

If you want to do something productive, wait until their out of office

If you want a mccain presidency, then pursue this now

[JDPriestly]

152. 2 or more years ago, the co-conspirator Republicans were in

charge of the House. This is the perfect time for the Democrats to pull themselves together to educate the American people about the crimes of the Bush adminisitration.

[JDPriestly]

99. Bush has the power to pardon for any offenses except

in case of impeachment. You need to read your Constitution. Impeachment is the means to prevent a pardon.

Nixon circumvented this restriction by leaving office before being impeached. He was then pardoned by his successor who had to be approved by Congress before he could take the office.

The process of impeachment cannot be completed during this Congress. It would take too long to complete the investigation into the many crimes of the Bush administration and review all the evidence. Also, the Congress would not have to stop the impeachment process just because Bush resigned.

Impeachment is the only way that we will ever have a coherent record of the crimes of the Bush administration. Impeachment is our only choice.

Bush is a tyrant. He refuses to answer to Congress, which is the people's forum. As the Romans learned the hard way, tyranny must never be allowed to become a legitimate form of government.

[still_one]

132. and you don't think cheney would resign, and a new vp be appointed if that happened

why do you assume it would be any different

Incidently, IT IS THE HOUSE THAT IMPEACHES, NOT THE SENATE, what the hell does that have to do with Obama?

If they wanted to impeach they should have done it 2 or more years ago

If you want to get mad at someone, blame Congress who voted for the patriot act and the IWR

At this stage, this is a non issue

After he is out of office prosecute the bastards

[JDPriestly]

153. The Senate has to agree to any appointment of a new vice president,

and they would not have to agree. That would leave Pelosi next in line.

[Hoof Hearted]

104. Ouch, my head.

Did you just say that impeachment of Bush wouldn't do any good because it would result in a pardon.......... BY WHO????

Do you think Presidents can pardon themselves?

[JDPriestly]

150. The impeachment hearings would permit the facts and his

role in these criminal events to be made public. Without impeachment the crimes of the Bush administration will be hidden forever.

This is a sad day for our country. It's one thing if the perpetrator of these murders and robberies hides the facts about his crimes, quite another if his opponents acquiesce in hiding the facts. I am shocked by Obama's callous disregard for the rights and interests of the American people.

[Andrea]

219. At the time he said it, they had one and a half years

left on their terms. You say it's too late now, but if they had 2 years left you would support it. Where exactly do you draw the line?

[enid602]

11. impeach

I would love to see our country avoid the heartache that accompanies the impeachment process, but I think the revelations that will surface with regard to Iraq will change the nature of the Iraq issue come November. People should see Iraq as it really is; don't let McCain romanticize it.

[az chela]

92. My sentiments exactly

[still_one]

134. What would happen is cheney would resign, a new vp appointed by bush

who would then pardon both cheney and bush if the impeachment was successful

more important however, it would detract from the current presidential election, and that we don't need right now

If they want impeachment, that is up to the house, not the senate, it isn't going to happen

but it is a nice way to divert attention from the differences between mccain and Obama

[still_one]

4. It wouldn't do any good at this stage. All impeachment does is remove them from office

and there isn't enough time

After they are OUT of office however, that is when you bring charges against them if they committed crimes

[JDPriestly]

101. It would remove Bush's bully pulpit and legitimacy as a spokesperson

for the U.S. forever. It would deprive him of the privileges of a former executive. Bush must be impeached. If he is not, it signals the end of our democracy. Forget it. If Bush is not impeached, the whole process set forth in the Constitution to insure our ability to govern ourselves is dismantled, and our so-called self-government is a sham.

Bush must be impeached.

[still_one]

142. Bill Clinton was prosecuted for perjery, and lost his license to practice law

What bush has done is worse than perjury

[smoogatz]

5. And your point is?

[2rth2pwr]

7. Vote the bums out? They're term limited.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

8. I wonder what kind of a grasp Obama has on our election systems.

But, he's right to take this public stand. He's running for office and wants to pick his fights.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Must be pretty good. He has only ever lost one election

[EFerrari]

15. I'm not trying to attack him, Freddie. He's about the smartest politician

I've ever seen in my adult life. :)

[JDPriestly]

105. Yeah! But who did he run against?

Obama has not run against any really tough opponents.

[democrattotheend]

67. I think he said that deliberately

As part of his strategy of linking McCain to Bush.

[JDPriestly]

107. So, if Bush isn't bad enough to impeach, why not McCain.

Obama has just removed the issue of the horrible corruption of the Bush administration from the election issues. What an idiot. Sorry, but this is the stupidest thing Obama could have done. He has lost my respect.

[JDPriestly]

103. No, he is not right to take this stand.

This cheapens Obama's run. He looks like a tawdry, weak wanna be because of this stance.

The correct thing for him to do would be to say that, because he is running for the presidency and could someday face impeachment himself, it is improper for him to express an opinion on this. Impeachment is the sole domain of the Congress. It is unfitting for a candidate for the presidency to express his opinion on the impeachment of a sitting president -- pro or con.

[EFerrari]

157. Obama is a US Senator.

[HockeyMom]

9. Charge him with crimes against humanity

after he leaves office.

[elocs]

13. Oh my God! Obama takes a stand against impeachment and he is not flamed for it?

He does have an excellent grasp of reality though and appears, for some reason, to recognize that this is a presidential election year which makes things different.

[LibraLiz1973]

163. People are fucking GUZZLING the kool aid around here

Get used to it

[Zhade]

170. I've already said it makes me rethink voting for him.

Then I see mcLame...

[PATRICK]

14. Politically expedient, dangerously wrong

and worst of all he probably believes it. As a Constitutional lawyer I think he has for all intents gutted the entire impeachment concept in the Constitution. Accountability with an imperial presidency heavily rigging the press and the polls with tight money strings on Congress is now nil, null and void. It leaves one with bad officials one can only dream will walk off Air Force One before the stairwell is in place.

In fact, the dirty secret of impeachment is that it is a tool only the bad guys will use at their pleasure and Dems avoid at cost of all duty. If voting is the sole measure we also need a much different form of government as well, though there are guarantees with nothing.

[EFerrari]

21. Make no mistake: this is the party line. It's been used by

Pelosi and Conyers, most notably.

But, that's their job -- to win elections. As one of the loudest impeachment activists that has been on DU, I understand that. My own job is a different one. To each, his own.

Can't help knowing that the Democrats are on the brink of taking real control back for the first time in decades. :shrug:

[JDPriestly]

108. I agree with you.

I have not only read the Constitution, but I have read the Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton on this topic. Impeachment is absolutely appropriate here. Obama is vying for popularity over integrity. I am disgusted!!!!!

[Andrea]

220. Bravo!

You said it so well.

[TooBigaTent]

16. The double-talk coming out of his mouth mirrors that of the worst panderers.

His refusal to hold the Bushistas accountable (though he is "distressed" by their actions, is total bullshit.

I have absolutely no faith that he will lead, or even allow, any accountability of the GOPers.

I have been hoping to hear something, anything, from Sen. Obama that would indicate that he recognizes what has been done to the US and the world by George and his cronies. He obviously does not.

Either he defends the Constitution and Democratic principles or he condones what has been done.

there is no middle-of-the-road on this issue. He has joined the enablers.

He will get no support from me.

[EFerrari]

17. I'll alert the media. n/t

[TooBigaTent]

26. I do not think that my beliefs are newsworthy. I am just expressing an opinion.

Sorry it offends you.

[EFerrari]

27. You're certainly entitiled to your opinion. n/t

[JDPriestly]

112. It's about time someone did.

When it takes a book by Scott McClellan to alert the American people to the criminality of the Bush administration, when a Scoot McClellan asks, "Where was the press?" when Bush lied to the American people, it is time to alert the press to how we thinking Americans see this situation.

Congress is to lazy and too self-interested to impeach this criminal -- and I include Obama as a member of Congress -- too lazy and too self-interested.

Wait a minute. Wasn't it Obama who said this wasn't about him, but that it was about the American people?

How is allowing the man who robbed us to walk away scot free without even disclosing the evidence of his crimes about the American people?

How is allowing the man who has killed hundreds of thousands of people in a war that he lied to get us into to walk away without so much as publicly making him admit his wrongs about the American people?

Face it, Obama is too lazy and too self-interested to risk outing the truth. He is a coward and a sneak just like Bush. I am totally disgusted.

At the very least, he could have left the decision about impeachment to the rest of Congress. It is completely inappropriate for a candidate for the presidency himself to make any statement on this issue.

[EFerrari]

128. It's really not his decision to make. n/t

[JDPriestly]

144. You are right, and that is the only statement that he should have made on this.

[KittyWampus]

19. "too big a tent" for whom?

[TooBigaTent]

32. Too big a tent means that I believe that there are people who consider themselves Democrats who

support positions that I would not consider Democratic. Is that so hard to to understand?

Just as I do not think that someone who believes that all gay people should be executed because they are evil should be welcome in the "big tent" of selling out principlesfor political expediency called the Democratic Party.

But that is just me. Maybe someone like that is welcome in other's Democratic Party.

[Danger Mouse]

48. It's not UP to you. Sorry.

[lumpy]

81. I agree all the way. The one thing that will appease the US

public that justice still prevails is impeachment, that little thing the Constitution provides to prevent leaders from going beyond the bounds of constitutional authority. No matter what the outcome, pardon or whatever, satisfaction that the weasels cannot usurp power or lie this nation into wars would give this country hope that integrity can survive.

[mikehiggins]

91. Okay then. Of course if your inactivity leads to a McCain

victory I'll probably be rather vexed with you.

Seriously, I think Obama is right on this one. Today is June 10th. How many days until the election? How many of them do we want dominated by an impreachment battle?

We HAVE to win this election. Everytning else is secondary.

[az chela]

93. I now wish that Dennis Kuchinich was running,he would

GET MY VOTE

[JDPriestly]

110. I agree with 100%.

[Patchuli]

141. It's not the job of the Democratic candidate

to seek impeachment. It is the job of the House of Congress. It would be idiotic for Obama to get involved in that. He is for the hope of the future.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Let us hope he is right

I fear that Bushco has been given too much power without any attempt to check them. This could mean an "October surprise" where elections are suspended, etc. etc.

I'm hoping that the impeachment articles let the other nations of the world know that at least some Americans are aware of what is going on and aren't ready to succumb to a fascist dictatorship.

[chill_wind]

20. I was wondering when this would come up...

eom

[Andrea]

221. Pretty darn late, if you ask me.

Where were people when he said this a year ago?

[rjones2818]

22. He's drooling over the thought...

of having all that power W's been able to grab.

Period.

Same with his supporters.

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://kucinich.us
http://integritynow.org
For those of us on the Left, Dennis is OUR Congressman!

[MadBadger]

25. WTF?

[EFerrari]

29. POWER! 1111

:rofl:

[Moochy]

76. Are you Drunk with Power... AGAIN??

:beer:

[rucky]

31. The first thing he says he'd do is overturn Bush executive orders.

He didn't have to say that.

[JDPriestly]

113. Precious little.

[Bluenorthwest]

194. Well actually

He said he and his attorney general would review them all and overturn the ones HE thinks are unconstitutional, a bar that as of today is set at the lowest possible level. He did not promise open or judicial review, nor did he say he'd overturn them if he liked them. As of today, that becomes an important distiction in my book.
While I intend to vote for our nominee, my excitement level is plummeting daily.

[Danger Mouse]

41. Oh, bull-fucking-shit

[Andrea]

222. That's certainly a possible explanation.

Thinking people need to ask why he thinks this way.

[kelligesq]

23. Destroying the Constitution & Bill of Rights, Rule of Law IS acceptable then . Athough

blow jobs in the oval office will get you impeached.

All Bush has done will stand as legal without impeachment.

[ej510]

28. I want to impeach Bush just for the principle. They can impeach him but they cannnot throw him out.

We do not have enough Senators to accomplish this.

[cali]

57. oh for the love of reason. Clinton wasn't impeached for a blow job

he was impeached for a stupid fucking lie under oath. And the end of bush's term doesn't end the possibility of impeachment, let alone criminal prosecution.

[ej510]

66. I agree with you! I want him to be impeached I just wish that we had enough votes to have him thrown

[WinkyDink]

181. Keep telling yourself that.

[JDPriestly]

120. I'm with you. Obama is absolutely wrong on this one.

Nice guy, and we know what happens to them. He is just being a weakling on standing up to Republicans. This does not bode well.

[EnviroBat]

24. Not sure I totally agree, but it does seem like it's no longer possible.

At this point, the impeachment process would take too long. That being said, I want to see Cheny and Bush tried for their crimes. I want to see them sentenced, even after they've left office for good. Surely we can hold these two assholes responsible, and try them as the criminals they are. If we allow them to go unpunished for what they've inflicted on us, I think that sends a horrible message to the world.

[lumpy]

84. Impeachment process takes too long. So what? Good wine

takes time they say. The possibility of Bush and his buddies being held accountable for their crimes in a court of law is so remote. What politician would be willing to pursue such a suit in view of the fact that few politicians even want to pursue impeachment?

[IdaBriggs]

33. If we impeach these guys, then he could be held to standards, too.

I can totally see why any incoming candidate would like the 'loose standards' rule applied to criminal behavior.

:shrug:

[Seabiscuit]

73. Only criminals "would like the 'loose standards' rule applied to criminal behavior".

If Obama literally means what he says, we're in deep doodoo if he's elected.

[Andrea]

223. Yep. n/t

[Vinca]

34. Well, I disagree with Obama, but we can't see eye to eye on everything.

IMHO, it will be a stain on the history of this country that Bush, Cheney and anyone else connected to fraudulently getting us into an unnecessary war was not impeached.

[Zorra]

35. Do you think he would vote to convict Bu*h if Congress produced indisputable

evidence that Bu*h was guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors", and came to trial before the Senate?

[Enrique]

37. he's saying he doesn't want Congress to work on producing that

which is what an impeachment inquiry would be, which he says he's against.

[Zorra]

44. I understand. But would he, as a Senator, vote to convict Bu*h if Congress produced

indisputable evidence that Bu*h was guilty of impeachable criminal offenses?

[Andrea]

224. Apparently not..

He does not view these crimes as grave enough. That leads me to ask, what does it take to rise to that level in his opinion?

[laststeamtrain]

38. Ah yes, the neo-liberal pussycat I (tactically) have to vote for.

Impeachment is part of "how our system is designed".

A gazillion compromises & all of a sudden a distinction without a difference.

We need more political parties. A fiercely democratic party would be nice, to work along side the pussycat Democratic party, to push it toward progress.

Oh well, I guess what's right is just a dream.

The way I read it is, given the facts, impeachment is a duty, not an option.

[RainDog]

39. the issue goes far beyond "voting the bums out." they are war criminals

and they need to be held accountable.

I don't really care about impeachment at this point, but I do think we need to have war crimes trials or truth and reconciliation hearings (with financial penalties for war profiteers, too.)

If we do not do this, we will have fascists in control of this nation within another decade. I say this b/c that's the truth of the recent past.

[Danger Mouse]

40. I disagree with Obama very strongly on this issue.

[THUNDER HANDS]

42. and this is why impeachment is a stupid idea

you want to do it a year into his second term, like the GOP did with Clinton, fine. But now Obama has to take sides on it and risk alienating one group or the other.

nice move Kucinich.

[lumpy]

85. It shouldn't be a political football. But apparently Obama

is convinced that it is a poltical issue. Not. If Obama is afraid of alienating anyone in the pursuit of justice then what the hell is all this hope and change about?

[Freddie Stubbs]

182. Of course it is political. That is why the framers of the Constitution gave this power to the House

rather than the courts.

[Jed Dilligan]

43. I say try-convict-execute after they're out of office.

Impeachment now would be fruitless.

[Beaverhausen]

45. This is really disappointing. These people aren't "bums" they are murders

pardons all around everyone. enjoy!!!

[rox63]

46. At this point, all impeachment would do is lose us the election

If it was much earlier in the process, I'd be more amenable to it. But I'd prefer the White House in Democratic hands come January.

[LTR]

49. THE ARTICLE IS A YEAR OLD

Perhaps you should have stated that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Has Senator Obama said or done anything in that year to indicate he has changed his mind?

:shrug:

[Yukari Yakumo]

56. Was there a point to posting that? {nt}

uguu

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. To put the issue in perspective with the words of a rational politician who

many DUers trust.

[katty]

52. I say "make the bums PAY" for 7 years of living hell and murder

[Tommy_Carcetti]

59. Let's be honest with each other. As much as we want it, it would be political suicide for Obama....

...to endorse impeachment at this point. The press would have a field day with him.

[Moochy]

60. Perhaps

I agree that it is not going to happen, but I'd like to point out that if the agent of Obama's political demise was the press, wouldn't that be political homicide? with the press being the agents?

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. If you purposefully step in front of a moving train, the death will likely be ruled suicide

[Moochy]

63. Next Stop DNC Victories

Please Note, the train does not stop at Justice or The Rule Of Law stations, this is an express Train!

[Moochy]

74. *crickets*

thought so.

[Indenturedebtor]

75. Yeah he couldn't really speak out for it at this point

I just hope he doesn't get in the way if by some miracle Impeachment proceeds.

[Elidor]

65. Just so long as prosecution is acceptable

I don't care about removing them from office now, when all we can accomplish is making martyrs out of them. But I want them prosecuted. It's really not to much to ask. "That's how our system is designed."

[BlackVelvet04]

68. LOL....

it's really fun watching you guys justify this. If it were Hillary we would see nothing but accusations of her being a Republican, Bushlite, neocon.

You guys are just too funny!

[wileedog]

71. If Hillary was the nominee it would be even DUMBER for her to push impeachment

Everyone would see it as petty, spiteful revenge at this point.

I would think she would have the political savvy to back away from this too.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. Obama actually cares about winning in 2008

There would be better ways to stop Obama beating McCain than initiating impeachment procedings against Bush - shooting him springs to mind - but it would be pretty damn politically suicidal.

Any impeachment supporter has to ask themselves the quesion "which do I prefer - inevitably failed impeachment procedings and a certainty of McCain, or no impeachment procedings and a good chance of Obama?"

Anyone who doesn't phrase the question in those terms is either deluding themselves or deliberately obfuscating the issue.

[Hugabear]

70. Well fuck Obama then,he can kiss my ass. I'll just vote for McCain instead.

That will show him!

:sarcasm:

Yes, I disagree vehemently with Obama on this issue, but I understand why he's coming out like this as he's gearing up for the general election. For one, it's a little too late for impeachment now, and would serve primarily as a symbolic gesture. Thanks a lot, Congress, for not doing this a few years ago when it might have actually MEANT something.

[quaker bill]

72. Impeachment was the right answer

several years ago. At this point it would be little more than a side show and distract folks from where attention should be focused, voting the bums out.

Even if they tried, you could not impeach and remove from office in the time remaining. Trying would consume all the time needed to govern. Getting rid of Bush is now automatic and nowhere near enough, congress needs a good fumigation as well.

What they should do instead is to bring up reasonable bills that the republicans would never support and hopefully veto, like Webb's GI bill. You want stuff on the agenda that the vast majority of the public would find reasonable and desirable, and have the republicans do their best to block it over and over. If you have control of the congress, use the control to frame the election issues in your favor. This is what they have done to us and turnabout is fair play.

Impeachment, this late in the game, does not do this. Good energy policy, healthcare reform, environmental protection, whatever, just make it easy to understand and clearly desired by the majority of reasonable folks, then let the repugs do their worst. Give them the rope and see what they do with it.

[Renew Deal]

78. It would be funny if McCain came out for impeachment

I'd love to see that.

[golddigger]

82. Sounds to me like a Obama/Pelosi ticket. They both have the same talking points down.

:popcorn:

[Freddie Stubbs]

188. Perhaps they are just two rational, astute politicians

[krawhitham]

83. SCREW Impeachment , I want jail time

[az chela]

87. Wrong statement Obama.bush/cheney

need to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives

[BelgianMadCow]

89. Sign on to the international criminal court. Retroactively try Bushco before that court.

Their crimes have really been on a global scale.

[anonymous171]

97. Does this surprise anyone? Hope not.

[Bjorn Against]

100. The headline is a bit misleading, he never says it is "not acceptable"...

While it is clear that he did not support holding impeachment hearings at the time he was questioned, I don't see anywhere that he said that impeachment was "not acceptable". I know that is the headline USA Today used, but USA Today also used the most unflattering photo of Obama that I have ever seen in that article, so I have a hard time taking a headline that says something different than what they quoted him as saying seriously.

I disagree with what they did quote him as saying, but the bottom line is that nowhere does he say it is "not acceptable". What he does say is this: "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority".

While it is clear that he is not likely to be the one to put impeachment on the table, he did leave the door open to supporting impeachment if it were to be brought to a vote.

[seafan]

102. For the record, this article is dated 7/2/2007.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

----Barack Obama, July 2, 2007


We've since crossed that threshold, specifically as one example, with the release of the Phase II report last week, detailing evidence of the orchestrated manipulation and fabrication of intelligence that Bush/Cheney foisted on this country to coerce support for their dirty war.

[grannylib]

106. As long as he's willing to see them tried for war crimes after

they're voted out (never having been voted IN) that's cool with me.

[cornermouse]

114. This really makes me angry.

The right thing to do is and always has been to impeach Bush and Cheney. Failure to impeach them sends a signal to every person in this country that you can basically do anything you want once you get in the White house without fear of reprisal. In short, a legal double standard.

[Scoovydoo]

117. I support Obama

He's our candidate. We shouldn't undermine him by opposing his views. Would you like McCain to win instead?

[cornermouse]

118. That's crazy.

When you see something that you know is the right thing to do, such as impeachment of Bush and Cheney, you do it because it IS the right thing to do.

[wileedog]

146. Not if it endangers the election. Period

Make no mistake - it is FAR more important to have Obama in the White House the next 8 years than impeach a president who is already finished and will go down as the Nation's worst ever anyway.

[cornermouse]

156. A few words you might want to consider. Period.

eth·ic (thk)
n.
1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" Gregg Easterbrook.
2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

ethics
Noun, pl
1. a code of behaviour, esp. of a particular group, profession, or individual: business ethics
2. the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, etc.
Noun
the study of the moral value of human conduct

prin·ci·ple (prns-pl)
n.
1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2.
a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.
3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.
5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion.
6. Chemistry One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect.
7. A basic source. See Usage Note at principal.

principle
Noun
1. a moral rule guiding personal conduct: he'd stoop to anything – he has no principles
2. a set of such moral rules: a man of principle
3. a basic or general truth: the principle of freedom of expression
4. a basic law or rule underlying a particular theory or philosophy: the government has been deceitful and has violated basic principles of democracy
5. a general law in science: the principle of the conservation of mass
6. Chem a constituent of a substance that determines its characteristics
7. in principle in theory though not always in practice
8. on principle because of one's beliefs

and last but not least...

casuistry
1. the branch of ethics or theology that studies the relation of general ethical principles to particular cases of conduct or conscience.
2. a dishonest or oversubtle application of such principles.

[wileedog]

158. Here's some words for you:

Permanent bases in Iraq
War in Iran
More tax cuts for the rich
ever widening class divide
Continued outsourcing of American jobs
Healthcare, Healthcare, Healthcare
Did I mention Healthcare?
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Global Warming
$5.00 Gas
Torture


By all means continue to chase your white whale while the country fucking implodes so you can finally claim some stupid hollow victory that in the grand scheme of things proves nothing. History will judge Bush harsher than any court system ever will.

[Zhade]

172. You do realize that letting these criminals walk will set up future crimes...

...just like not impeaching reagan and poppy bush did, right?

[wileedog]

189. You do realize that the worst George Bush is going to get is a slap on the wrist

and/or a pardon right? How much jail time did Nixon do?

And again, the time to have this argument was two years ago, not when he will be out of office before they put together the Grand Jury case.

Politicians get busted every day for corruption or sex scandals, and yet somehow they just keep on taking bribes and using the money on hookers and mistresses. Doesn't seem like the last 50 COngresspeople to get busted has deterred too many people has it?

Bush will rightly go down as the worst and most corrupt President in history, and he will be savaged by the history books. THAT will be more of a warning against following his path to future Presidents than a circus trial.

[Two Americas]

130. that logic is dangerous

By that logic, we could never advocate for anything until and unless a politician had already taken the stand we wanted to support. That would completely destroy representative democracy and would more nearly resemble a dictatorship.

The politicians are supposed to represent us. Calling for all of us to conform to a program of strictly representing them is anti-democratic.

[Zhade]

171. I'm with you. Lock up the medijuana patients but let the murderers walk?

Insanity, and another reminder that the best Obama will do is throw up his hands to stop a few of the rocks from the coming Great American Avalanche.

I support Obama. But I never kidded myself that he will do what truly needs to be done - just that he's better than clinton or mcLame.

[Freddie Stubbs]

199. You'll get over it

[question everything]

116. Good. He is starting to show leadership (nt)

[golddigger]

125. Yep, just like nancy Pelosi leadership. Will, just another politician.

No garment touching for me at this time.

[merh]

121. No wonder you didn't post in Breaking News

the article is almost a year old.

:rofl:

[Freddie Stubbs]

162. Yes, but very relevent to what happened in the House on Monday

[merh]

166. sure it is

And his assurance that he will be sure that his AG and the DOJ will investigate all allegations of wrong doing by GWB and his admin, meh, not so much.

[PufPuf23]

122. Impeachment is not a politcal question

I disagree with Obama and that he could say such a thing ever is a disappointment and leads me to feel ever so more hopeless about the future of our country and the world. I will vote for Obama anyway but this just shows Obama is just another politician. Impeachment is looking forward not looking back. Impeachment is justice and an opportunity to put our house in order. The USA I was raised to believe in is dead.

[onenote]

183. of course it is

When elected officials are given the discretionary authority to take an action, the results inherently are political in nature.

[slinkerwink]

123. I don't agree with impeachment as it's too late. Bush has eight more months to go.

[windoe]

124. Ouch. I was hoping at least impeachment would pass,

so that it could go on record that this governing body disapproves of these crimes, and that people are being listened to. Now I have to hope that there is a more potent strategy for indicting and convicting without chance of pardons, after BushCo's term is up.
Sure would like to hear stronger language from Obama, he's got to know people are chomping at the bit to impeach these guys....

[Skip Intro]

126. Well impeachement is part of the system too. It's not about getting rid of them, it's about justice.

Is Obama's opposition to impeachement based on some deeply held conviction, or born of political expediency?

[Kingofalldems]

127. You're against impeachment? I'm shocked, I thought repugs were

for accountability. Thanks for posting a year old article.

[mzmolly]

129. One of the reasons that Pelosi is said to have waited is because

she wanted to take the lead from our candidate?

Obama, like Turley (a frequent guest on Countdown who promotes impeachment) is a Constitutional Scholar so I would be interested in hearing an argument from a scholarly perspective on this from him.

I do want Dems to impeach Bush/Cheney at some point, even if we do so after the R's are voted out of office.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

135. June 2007. Wow -- I knew dial-up was slow, but this is just reaching your computer?

[Joe the Revelator]

136. There is a reason Dennis is labled as a kook......

pulling this shit out 2 years after it would have any effect, in the middle of an election year that we HAVE to win, is as good as reason as any.

[beachmom]

137. It's too late to impeach. And, guys -- we are in a G.E. now, and aren't

going to be thrown the red meat as much now. I am fine with that. I am all about "Win the Election" now.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

149. only if the GOP don't manipulate the vote and don't pull a fast one!

Don't we hear the drumbeat for war.......with Iran?

[Mutley]

151. I agree with him.

First, most of the party (and by party I don't mean DU, but ALL of the party) does not support impeachment. Obama is doing the right thing by backing the wishes of the majority of the Democratic party.

Secondly, coming out for impeachment would be the end of his campaign, and we'd have at least four years of McCain to look forward to. McSamebutcrazierifthatisevenpossible? No thanks.

[Prophet 451]

155. Disappointing

I understand why he takes that stance, I can see his reasoning but I think this is oe of those occasions where principle should trump pragmatic politics.

[wileedog]

164. Nonsense

This country is falling apart around us and we are on the bring of a 2nd retarded and completely unnecessary war and you are pushing what amounts to a vandetta.

Is the fate of George Bush and Co. more important than the soldiers who will be sent into Iran under a McCain Presidency?

Is it more important than affordable healthcare for millions of people, or getting rid of the abhorrent No Child Left Behind Program?

More important than middle class tax relief or shutting down avenues for corporate outsourcing?

If we were going to push this it should have been in 2006. Its too risky now considering what is at stake.

[Prophet 451]

174. What you call vendetta, I call justice

Firsly, I'm not convinced it would result in a McCain presidency. The exposure, in detail, of BushInc's crimes and McCain's close association with the Bushistas would, I suspect, actually go against him. Secondly, while I haven't seen a poll lately, the last one I saw showed a significant number of the public in favour of impeachment.

The 2nd war (I presume you mean Iran?) will come or not regardless of whether Bush is impeached. An impeachment will make no difference whatsoever to their thought processes there.

As for the rest, Healthcare, NCLB, tax relief, outsourcing: You're not going to get any of that under a Bush presidency anyway. The Democratic Congress have proved almost entirely spineless and even if somethign did get through, even if there were enough votes to override the inevitible veto, it would simply be annulled or gutted by signing statement. Is the pursuit of justice more important than those things, which you wouldn't get under Bush anyway? Yes, I think it is. I think there is nothing and nobody more important than the pursuit of justice.

Granted, I speak as a Brit, living in Britain and the issues you raise that directly affect me are limited to the war and your tanking economy (I work for a US firm and get paid in dollars) but I will tell you this: If Bush leaves office without impeachment, without trial or at least the start of it, he will never, ever face accountability. The evidence will disappear, be lost, forgotten. The witnesses will get old and die off. The past will be re-written (as has already happened with Reagan) and the people will forget. But the presidency will still hold all the powers that the Bushes grabbed. The Repubs will scream like hell if a President Obama tries to use them and the Democrats will probably fold but the powers will still be there and in ten, twenty years time, when the people have gotten forgetful or complacent, another Bush or another Cheney will come around and they'll take office through dirty tricks as they have before and they'll dust off all those powers, use them all and expand them ever further.

That's the way history always goes. If evil is not confronted, people forget until, eventually, it is regarded as not so very evil after all.

[wileedog]

192. Here's a fact for you

Bill Clinton was more popular AFTER the impeachment trial than he was before it by 10 points. This was after months and months of blue dresses, cigars, Ken Starr, etc.

The impeachment of Bush would become a massive, all encompassing circus in the media. It would dominate the news cycles from now until well after it was over.

Election day would come around, and the over-riding feeling in the country would be "Obama who?". Remember the vast majority of people in this country, even the one's who vote, only vaguely follow the primaries. They start to get interested sometime around September in who the candidates are, mostly because that is when the talk shows and comedies start to really focus on them. Other then knowing Obama is black and the he beat Clinton, the avergage Joe here doesn't know him or his policies from a hole in the wall.

Futhermore, what they do know about McCain already is his ubiquitous "Maverick" label. They know there was a nasty election beween Bush and McCain in 2000. They know (or think) he doesn't always toe the party line. He won't be automatically dumped in with Bush's crimes.

With Obama struggling to have his voice heard over the absolute zoo that an Impeachment Trial would be, it would be even that much harder to tie him to Bush or his policies. McCain can easily position himself that Bush was the one that lied us into war, but that doesn't mean we should "surrender" (or whatever it is that they are trying to achieve there at this point).

Lastly, you still have the fanatacial 28%ers who will defend Bush tooth and nail. You have another good size chunk of Republicans who may not like Bush in the least, but they sure as heck are not going to let Dems impeach him for things they STILL believe are NOT true. Most Republicans have poo-poooed McClellen's book as hogwash, and even more impartial folks have noted it lacks any true new real evidence.

The net effect is a galvanized Republican base instead of the currently pissed off and apathetic one you have now.

Sorry, this all should have happened two years ago. Now it a largely symbolic gesture that jeapordizes the most important election in decades. Its not worth the risk.

History will paint Bush as the most incompetent and corrupt President we have ever had, and his legacy will be one of utter and complete failure. I think that will be as a strong deterrent to the next guy that wants to follow his path as any minor punishment that may come out of this (and no, he is never going to prison. He'll be pardoned or get a slap on the wrist at best).

[onetwo]

167. The public humiliation of Bush/Cheney is NOT worth 4 years of John McCain.

Sorry.

[Prophet 451]

168. I'm not convinced it would come to that

Firstly, how many Americans are actually in favour of impeachment? I haven't seen a recent poll but in the last one I saw, it was a significant number. Secondly, I think the exposure of BushInc's crimes in detail would actually damage McCain, given his close association with the Bushistas.

[LibraLiz1973]

159. I think that him saying he thinks it is not acceptable is what is really unacceptable

"Vote the bums out"??

They are fucking leaving anyway.
It makes me SICK- literally sick- that those two sacks of shit
have done what they have to this country & that they will leave the office
without so much as a slap on the wrist.

I have MAJOR problems with any Dem (or american) who says that Impeachment need not be an option.

This is one issue that would make me not bother voting for anyone.
Because if he can't see how corrupt what they have done is, I am not inclined to vote for him to have control over anything.

I've said before and I will say again- I think we got fucking ROBBED this election cycle.
I'll end up voting for Obama but I have absolutely no faith in him.

[2rth2pwr]

177. How is it that all this vitriol on this thread is allowed? Obama is the nominee,

this undermining and attempting to make him look bad has no place in GD: P.

I can't wait for the pizza ovens to be fired up tomorrow morning.

[Bluenorthwest]

195. Standards for support

This applies to those in elected office and those seeking it, starting with the President and incuding our nominee: " To announce that there should be no criticism of the President, or that we should stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt said it. If you expect a choir of lockstep harmony, you are in for a big suprise.
I will vote for our nominee. I don't have to agree nor claim to agree. He's wrong.

[davidpdx]

178. He said this almost a year ago and

while I support impeachment, it's pretty clear it's going to go nowhere. It is too little, too late. If people want to pin the blame on someone, then blame Pelosi not Obama. Democrats took over control of the House in Jan 2007. Impeachment will change the whole campaign and could in fact backfire. The point is moot unless the House of Representatives actually passes the articles of impeachment.

[Zachstar]

179. Im sorry Obama but you screwed up with this.

[WinkyDink]

180. So much for "high crimes and misdemeanors"; they're now just "loose ethical standards".

Not to mention the actual TREASON in regards to the CIA operative Plame.

VERY disappointing to read.

[onenote]

185. a question for those jonesing for impeachment proceedings now

We've just been through a half year of primary battles, starting with more than a half dozen candidates and winnonwing it down to two, then one. There were literally hundreds of opportunities --speeches, debates, intereviews, policy papers -- for these candidates to talk about impeachment. And if the public was as interested in it -- and not in ending a horrible war, not in coming up with an energy policy and health care reforms and fixing the economy and saving the environment -- if impeachment was priority for the public -- how is it that only one candidate ever even mentioned impeachment and he was gone from the without ever making a dent?

The public doesn't care about impeaching chimpy. They realize he's already mostly out the door. They don't care about looking backward. They care about what we do to fix the mess he's left us. The economy, gas prices, the war, the environment, jobs, energy, health care. For any candidate in a competitive race for any office -- president, house, senate -- to push for impeachment would be foolish.

[Freddie Stubbs]

208. Actually, Obama came out against impeachment last June:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm?csp=34

[barack the house]

186. To be real honest of all the people I prefer him not to go after them..

It's safer for all if we let it go,, it's sad to say but it is a reality. I just wanna fix stuff at this point.

[CreekDog]

187. Obama didn't say "Impeachment is not acceptable"

despite the headline, that was not among his quotes, which means the headline is misleading.

[Bluenorthwest]

190. So Obama says no punishment for Cheney or Bush

But he wants to keep people in jail who are there for holding a couple of joints? So he is a hypocrite just like the rest.
Without justice we will rot as a society. Obama is so wrong it makes me ill. I want my vote back. He supports crimials going free? Or just those of his class?

[dysfunctional press]

191. no, he didn't...he said no to impeachment.

punishment can still come after they're no longer in office.

[Bluenorthwest]

197. Where did he speak of that?

He did not. Additionally there is no historic precedent for what you imply Obama intends to do. Of course Obama did not say what you are spinning. You are just riffing.

[Kablooie]

196. Impeachment is not punishment.

Real punishment will be the Democrats taking over the government and having a court of law decide their fate.

[Bluenorthwest]

198. See how easy?

Easy for you to say it, why not Obama? And Impeachment is punishment, ask Bill. If Obama said what you said, that would be great. But he did not. If supporting justice would lose him the election as some here say, do you think that if he promised not to seek justice that would help him win? Do you think Americans who will vote Democratic at all would refuse to vote for him if he wanted to seek justice for Bush and Cheney? How many really say, 'I'll vote for that Obama, but only if he lets Bush walk.' Seriously. How many voters draw that line in the sand who are not already set for McCain? Lots of Democratic voters oppose Impeachment? I don't think so. But maybe you are all right and he should promise pardons and clinch victory in November!

[Kablooie]

209. Bill Clinton is still walking the streets.

Of course we can't see the future but we can hope, and when the time comes, push, to get those guys locked away so the punishment continues *after* they leave office. Obama might be willing to listen once he is not campaigning and is actually in control.

I'm not against impeachment but I'm more interested in setting the precedent that no one can get away with these crimes without punishment. And I'm willing to wait a little bit longer if that can happen.

[Andrea]

201. One of the saddest things is

that he said this a year ago. I knew it. It was widely published. Apparently millions either didn't pay attention or didn't care. Why didn't Obama supporters pressure him to change his position? Why should Democrats be in the Bush-apologist business?

[Galway girl]

202. Impreachment No arrested for WAR Crimes yes . The US has broken the Geneva Conventions

By our own standard the leaders who are responsible should be arrested and given a fair trial wehere if found guilty face the possibility of the Death Penalty....

[pleah]

216. Ya think, maybe, he needs to read the Constitution again?

:shrug: