Today, Randi Rhodes and her guest, Jonathan Turley, asserted

[JDPriestly]

that Democratic members of Congress are complicit in all of the offenses for which Bush could be impeached.

I beg to differ. I am unaware of any evidence showing that Congressional Democrats were complicit in the corruption of the Justice Department, the use of money allocated for other purposes to fund the preparation for the War in Iraq, the knowing lie about the forged Niger document, the failure to provide promised buses and other support materials to the people of New Orleans, the loss of millions upon millions of dollars to fraud and corruption in Iraq. There are bound to be many other crimes that no Democratic member of Congress knew anything about much less condoned.

As for the illegal wiretapping, I am not certain. It is my understanding that very few Democrats had an inkling that there was any wiretapping going on, that they were under the threat of grave penalties if they protested publicly and therefore really had no say about it or way to end it (since they could not talk about it), and that even those who were given some information about it were not told the whole truth and were led to believe that the program had ended when it had not.

Please post information about any of the other impeachable offenses in which Democratic leaders were not complicit. I have not read Kucinich's list yet.

[Carolina]

1. complicity can be good men (and women) sitting

by and doing nothing.

[Cha]

22. Got that right..

Excellent, Carolina.

[TahitiNut]

26. Exactly.

We're a nation of cowards and criminals unless and until Veheny, Bush, and their cronies are prosecuted and imprisoned for their war cimes and crimes againt the Constitution. Our so-called "leaders" are without honor and without integrity to exactly the degree they've facilitated and enabled those crimes, if only by not standing up.

[Supersedeas]

28. indifference and tacit acceptance by the 'so-called' leadership

[Cant trust em]

2. oh god. On first read I thought that said RR and her guest arrested.

My heart jumped out of my chest for a second.

[busymom]

9. I read it that way too. LOL

[NashVegas]

3. No, That's About Right

There are a number of things they could have done, especially after 2006.

[Sperk]

4. complicit as in a cop watching a rapist rape over and over again.....

yes, they are complicit.

[sandnsea]

5. Selling the Iraq War?

You mean to tell me Madelaine Albright, Bill Cohen, Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton didn't know what the aluminum tubes were for, that the balsa plane was a joke, that the 90's chemicals were useless, that the yellowcake story was a lie...

seriously, you really think they had no clue Bush was lying???

Psssht.

[JDPriestly]

12. They did not know. They knew what Bush had previously done.

They did not know. Besides, none of them were sitting in Congress or members of any Democratic amdinistration at the time that Bush committed his many crimes. And, that is only one area. I mentioned quite a few other examples of crimes in which no Democrat in Congress or currently in the leadership of the Party was or could have been complicit.

Randi is wrong and so is Turley. They are just wrong.

[sandnsea]

18. Oh brother

I defend most of the Dems in Congress on Iraq. But there is no doubt in my mind that a few who were closest to Bill Clinton and his Administration absolutely knew Bush was lying. Give me a break, they are not that stupid. After you're complicit in war lies, the rest isn't that important.

[JDPriestly]

21. What to Clinton's people have to do with impeaching Bush?

And what about the Democrats like Feingold and Obama and Kucinich and many others who did not go along and who were ridiculed for voting or speaking out against the war?

Past crimes do not legitimize current crimes. I don't care whether Congress was complicit. It is their duty to set the record straight and to do it now. Forget our constitutional form of government if they don't.

[sandnsea]

24. Who advised the Dems in Congress on Iraq?

The Clintons. If Dems in Congress are complicit in Bush crimes, at least on Iraq, it's because the Clinton Administration advised them. People who didn't help perpetuate their lies, aren't guilty. And yes, they should tell the truth about what has been done, no matter what happens. I think our democracy will be stronger for it too.

[JDPriestly]

27. One of the reasons that Clinton lost the primary is that

she failed to align herself with right and justice on Iraq. Obama needs to differentiate himself from those who appeased Bush on the issue of Iraq.

What is not to impeach about allowing the use of torture in violation of American law? What is not to impeach about violating FISA -- blatantly violating FISA?

If Obama cannot impeach President Bush based on the long list of crimes for many of which the evidence is unassailable, then for what can a president be impeached? Does the president have to openly sell American secrets to its enemies in order to be impeached? Is that the only conduct that is impeachable? God save our republic if that is the case, because that would mean that being elected to the presidency puts you above the law. That is not what the Republicans argued when Clinton was president.

Is Obama preparing to place himself above the law? I want his statement on that, please.

[99th_Monkey]

6. Silence becomes complicity, especially if crimes are committed right under your nose

and one has (as Congress clearly does) the explicit authority to remedy the situation.

[JDPriestly]

13. Democrats in Congres have had the opportunity and

authority to impeach at the earliest since January 2006. Most of the crimes were committed or at least begun prior to that date.

[JuniperLea]

7. I agree with Randi on this one...

Good to know she hasn't lost all her marbles.

[JDPriestly]

14. What is your evidence. Why do you agree with Randi.

Please read my responses to other posts on this thread before responding to me.

[crickets]

8. Refusing to do their Constitutional duty *is* complicity

under the threat of grave penalties if they protested publicly

Posters on DU were aware of the lies before the war began. Considering how many of us called our representatives to talk to them about it and beg them to vote against the IWR, there's no way I believe the "we didn't know" meme. One branch of government threatening another if they exposed or protested unconstitutional activity in not acceptable. A Congress willing to put up with this is not acceptable either.

Democracy - so inconvenient. :eyes:

I have not read Kucinich's list yet.

Why not?

[JDPriestly]

15. But, what about the crimes in the Justice Department?

What about the crimes in handling Katrina? What about the funding of the preparation of the War in Iraq from money from money not allocated for that purpose?

Impeachment is necessary under the circumstances.

Read the Federalist Papers on this issue (Alexander Hamilton). Bush has committed political crimes, and those are the crimes that impeachment is supposed to address.

[crickets]

25. "Impeachment is necessary under the circumstances." YES!

I think we're on the same page, here. From your posts I'm reading in other threads (and this comment) I see that now. I wasn't sure from your OP, but I guess our only difference may be re: the complicity of Congress. It is my firm belief that they were aware in the past and are aware now of the Bush administration's many crimes, yet they are shirking their sworn duty by doing nothing, and that is what makes them complicit.

Bush has committed political crimes, and those are the crimes that impeachment is supposed to address.

On this, we agree. :)

My hope - it's slim, and I realize many think it is a vain one - is that with open hearings it might be made public record that their crimes are not only political but moral and legal ones.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. Sins of omission, so to speak.

Forbearance where not warranted.

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. This is why they are complicit...

"Upon taking office, Senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected Senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law."

The Constitution has been shredded while they stood by and did NOTHING.

[JDPriestly]

17. They have time to redeem themselves.

[madrchsod]

16. if you don`t say it`s wrong then you think it`s right

[JDPriestly]

19. So, Congress needs to stand up now.

They have achieved what they can achieve in terms of positive legislation. It is time to see that justice is done.


The delay is understandable. They had to gather initial facts.

Do you know how long it takes to go to trial after the filing of a complaint in an ordinary civil matter in a state court in a large state such as California?

Look into it. It varies, but 18 months is not long if you are talking about complex litigation. In fact, I have seen cases in pre-trial for years.

[SeattleGirl]

20. They weren't saying that all of them were complicit, but rather that

the Bush Administration pulled some of them into different activities they were doing (but not ALL activites), in terms of knowing about them, knowing what they were doing, etc.

[Scoovydoo]

23. I don't blame congress. I blame congressional Republicans

They block many good bills put forth by Democrats.

[KoKo]

29. Many of the "old timers" are complicit. They don't want to admit it for whatever reason

maybe lobbyist money, or fear....but they are...and that's why they are fighting taking any action against Bush. But, there are still many who aren't who are working very hard to get Bush & Company held accountable. It's not a good time in either the House or the Senate. But, the Senate is where alot of the complicity is...and is covered up because it's such a tight knit group...with long alliances..way back.