Should Focus On The Election Supersede Congress' Sworn Duty Regarding The B*sh Administration Crimes

[Divine Discontent]

If you answer yes, since I've read many people's agreement with that point over the past year, and you feel Congress cannot risk dealing with these matters because it will take away from the election and Obama's chances - I'd like to hear why you feel an election should override what these people have been sent to Washington DC to do.


Pro-Obama & Anti-B*sh/McSame Items!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[blondeatlast]

1. Other: they are both crucial to our democracy but we're in a crisis--which

forest fire do we reign in first?

I am absolutely torn on the issue. I apologize to those on both sides for that.

[Zhade]

2. Hey, at least you're not willing to let criminals walk!

I'm in a similar position - these criminals MUST be held accountable, but will they?

Let's go with a compromise: send these fuckers to the Hague.

[Divine Discontent]

6. well, I agree with that point wholeheartedly!! :)

if I knew they would be sent to the Hague after 08, I'd not worry about it. I cannot express how disgusted I will be at our gov't if they let the bastards get away with the shit they've done - because they HAVE done so for a year and a half already - when they could have stood up for what we the people clearly sent them to do in '06.

I'm glad there's people around like you, Zhade, who have hope and strong demand that they eventual face justice!

[blondeatlast]

9. I can wholeheartedly support that position--no apologies to anyone! nt

[bowens43]

3. There will be no impeachment.

wasting time on it now only works for the republicans. there will be time later to prosecute crimes if crimes were committed. witnesses will be more likely to come forward after this administration is out of power.

[Forkboy]

5. The two issues can work hand in hand.

Having the impeachment story in the news is not a negative for Democrats at all. The idea of a Republican president's impeachment while a Republican nominee is running just helps associate the two in the minds of many.

Let Kucinich take the arrows, I'm sure he doesn't mind. Let Obama play the good cop on this. It's helps both of them, and it helps us win. Take and exploit any edge we can, and force them to defend multiple fronts.

Impeachment doesn't even have to work (and won't). It still helps, and isn't a distraction or a waste of time.

[Divine Discontent]

7. thanks for that discerning opinion and viewpoint, Forkboy

I agree, it doesn't even have to work, just as long as the crimes get talked about over the summer, and more people hear about what they'd be supporting if they vote for McSame.

on a side note, I am envious of your and Zhade's cool little guys who move around on your posts! Each one of them is sooooo cute! :)

[mikehiggins]

4. This just serves as a distraction.

If Pelosi/Reid had gotten off the mark as soon as the 2006 election was over things might have worked out differently.

They didn't, however, and right now all of our attention HAS to be on getting the GOPukes out as soon as possible.

There are some who seem to feel its going to be easy to beat the powers that be.

There are some who claim all that matters is standing up and being counted in defense of our Constitution and our way of life. To me the better way is to remove the evil doers, thereby giving the Democratic majority the chance to rollback all of the offensive aspects of the Bush mis-administration from a position of power.

Sorry if this seems to be rambling on but the point is that, IMHO, the media and the military/industrial guys, and the DLCers and all the rest would be happy to have everyone concentrating on impeachment rather than of kicking the bastards out.

It isn't going to be easy. Lets not shoot ourselves in the foot by getting bogged down in an effort to impeach, using up time and treasure we need to run a winning campaign.

[Two Americas]

8. false choice

Ever since Democrats started saying "right now we need to win, and then later we will get to all of that stuff about principles and ideals" we have been losing elections. The notion that winning and principles are in opposition to one another is false. We can have both, or we will have neither. Standing on principle is what brings wins - the only thing that reliably will. When the party has fought hardest and stood most firmly on principle, ot has also had its greatest electoral success. I think there are people in the party who actually want the party to be cautious and timid and to move to the right. They portray principle as being a threat to winning as a dishonest way to achieve that. I think that too many people are more concerned about keeping the party in the center than they are about winning. They would rather lose than have the party move to the left or take up a strong oppositional stand against the right wingers. They say "don't be too aggressive, don't go too far to the left or you will lose."

This is all so inside out and backward that it is hard to know where to start.

"We can't fight for what is right because then we would be wrong."

"We can't advocate for what we want to see, because then we will not get it."

If you give up principle for the sake of winning, you will have won nothing even if you do win, and I think the continual cautious, centrist stance and the abrogation of principle and duty and honor is the reason that we lose.

I have been hearing the "it is not the right time" argument for over 30 years. Apparently, it is never the right time to fight back against the right wing, because there is always some nice little plan of ours that will be interfered with or jeopardized if we actually fight the right wing. Just what is the precious agenda, the plan, that always takes precedence over fighting back? Whom does it serve? How has it worked?

Then we have this other idea, that first we elect politicians and THEN we pressure them and let them know what we want, THEN they will move to the left. Of course, the exact opposite keeps happening. If we keep giving them unqualified support and rewarding them for taking cautious centrist positions, what incentive do they have to ever change?

[kentuck]

10. No, it shouldn't...

But it will.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. there is no sworn duty to impeach