How do other DUers feel about going through with Impeachment after 06?

[Dawgs]

If the Dems take back the House do we really want to get rid of Bush, seriously? Will it hurt the Democrats, or help?

I personally think we should just keep him around until 2008. Let's use him for our advantage in 2008. He'll stay a lame duck (especially after 2006), and it's not like he'll ever turn things around. Yes, we all want to take him down for what he has done, but wouldn't it better if we could use it to get Gore, Feingold, or Clark in the oval office.

If he does get impeached we are stuck with Cheney or someone else just like Bush. Will the policies really change?

Also, how will the press treat the Democrats if they start impeachment hearings? Right now it seems like every time a Democrat sneezes the "liberal" press starts acting like it's some big corruption scandal. How do you think they'll act if the Democrats first thing would be to go after Bush. He's already hated by most of the people in this country. We already won that battle. Do we need to have impeachment hearings just to get back at him?

Thoughts?

[Minnesota Libra]

1. I'm all for it and I think it should start as of......................

......November 8th too. :bounce:

[Toots]

2. Impeach both Cheney and Bush* and let new Speaker become President

New speaker (probably Peloisi) would become President. You don't like that scenerio? Investigate first. Get the facts. Then act upon them in a responsible way. That would be something Republicans very rarely do.

[gilpo]

17. The rethugs would never let both Chaney and * be impeached....

before that happened, Chaney would resign and * would appoint someone unimpeachable (Jed?) (Gack!). It might backfire and leave us with a harder fight for the WH in 08. My opinion is that we should get them both on war crimes after they have left office, make an example out of them.

[IdaBriggs]

3. Only if crazy things like "laws" matter should impeachment be considered.

Otherwise, why not act like the Republicans and keep ignoring all of the law breaking? I'm sure they will do the same for our "corrupt" politicians.

:sarcasm:

If I'm not clear, HELL YES IMPEACH THE CONSTITUTION IGNORING LAW BREAKING SON OF A BUSH!!! DO NOT LET HISTORY THINK THIS (deleted obscenity) WAS ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH HIS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR!!!

[meegbear]

4. I want him impeached, but I want Congress to do it's job first ...

fix the past 12 years of repug rule that helped make this country as fucked up as it is now.

Work on impeachment all the while, but spend like the first 3 months fixing the country.

[Warpy]

5. If ever there has been a time for impeachment, it's now

but I'm not sure I'd like to see Congress basically shut down to accomplish it.

Given enough of a majority to get an impeachment and removal through, Congress might find its time better spent on overturning all the mischief this administration has done, one bill at a time, overriding Stupid's temper tantrums and petulant vetoes. Conducting legitimate investigations at the same time might be possible, pick off all the criminials close to Stupid one at a time, isolate him, blockade him, frustrate him, and neuter him.

Whatever a Dem majority Congress decides to do about the little emperor is something I will likely support. However, I want his rotten stewardship of this country ended, and impeachment may not be the best way to go about it.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

6. It might help democrats not to impeach...if * doesn't outlaw the party.

For the sake of the country, I'm all for impeachment, whether or not it hurts Democrats in 08.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

9. with a caveat...dems shouldn't tip their hand before the midterms.

[AngryOldDem]

7. I think it should be done just to keep the Constitution intact

While it may not amount to a hill of beans in 2007, Congress needs to reaffirm the legitimacy of the Constitution and the rule of law in this nation.

In other words, send a clear message to Bush's successors that the abuses that this administration has perpetrated on this nation will not stand.

To that end, impeachment would be far from an empty gesture. It just may save the republic.

[exlrrp]

8. Impeachment is now a waste of time

Assuming that the Dems take one or both of the houses of congress, there's a whole lot more important things to do than impeach Bush. Its too late in the game for that now. If this had occurred even a year earlier I would think it would have a chance to make it but not now, with only 2.5 years to go. Remember how long it took to impeach Clinton??
It would mean that the Dems woulod have to take the Senate back by a lot more than the 6 seats to achieve a majority. This is why Clinton was not removed from office--not enough votes in the Senatrre to remove although by then the Reps had a majority in the Senatwe.
This is why Clinton's impeachment was a complete waste of time and taxpayers money--there never was a majority necessary to remove in the Senate and they counted those numbers before they started--the Reps knew it wouldn't happen but they impeached anyway, just for the propaganda value.
I hope like crazy that the Dems sweep both Houses but I don't think they have a physical chance to take that many seats in the Senate, there's not that many up for grabs.
With not enough votes in the Senate, impeachment of Bush would be the same waste of time impeachemt of Clinton was.
This is why the Dems should say now they won't go after Bush--there's more important things to do, like start fixing all the messes Bush made. There's no chance in Hell of impeaching Bush and removing him in the time remaining--action would be better spent elsewhere

[ThomWV]

10. This Isn't Political. The SITUATION Demands Impeachment

Impeachment isn't available because its a nice political tool to be used when it can make Party points. It is a means to remove from office criminals who should never have been in office in the first place.

That is why George W. Bush and others need to be impeached at the first opportunity, not because of some good for the Democratic Party.

[abluelady]

12. Exactly

We are letting the GOP run our agenda. The spin out there is impeachment would be bad for the country; it would be looked at as tit for tat (Bush for Clinton), etc.. That is bullshit. Impeachment is a responsibilty that should be taken because of the actions of the present leadership. We need to stop following their agenda.

[Marymarg]

11. Instead of impeachment

I think the Democrats should go after the hearts and minds of all the American people. They should make very clear that they will not go for impeachment, not because Bush does not deserve it but because the credibility of impeachment was so tainted by the politically-motivated absurdity of the Republicans against Clinton.

The democrats should bring to light everything that has happened in this evil administration and emphasize what a liar Bush is and repudiate him totally. Then, only if there is a bipartisan outcry should it evolve into impeachment. If it appears political, we may lose more than we gain.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. I agree.

I think they want us to remove Bush for them so they can make an issue of it in 2008. He's an embarrassment to their party and he no doubt scares them as much as he scares us.

Personally I think impeachment isn't in the Democrats best interest. If we get control of congress we need to leave Bush right where he is. Plus if we remove him we have to remove Cheney too or what's the point?

Leaving him there and trying to marginalize him would work in our favor in 2008. Any Republican candidate that runs for president will have to defend him or her self for previously supporting him. Another 2 years of his idiocy will continue to drag down the GOP in the eyes of the voting public.

The amount of time it would take to impeach Bush and Cheney will leave little or no time for an incoming administration to deal with the problems now facing us, so little will be gained by removing them. Let's focus on the goal of getting rid of the GOP for the long term.

[NNN0LHI]

14. I will get my first good nights sleep in years when Bush and Cheney ...

...no longer control this countries nuclear weapons. They can only hurt so much with the regular military but they can destroy the world with their nukes. This is no exaggeration either.

Kooks with nukes. Thats what we have here.

Don

[Tesha]

15. Don't impeach; Indict. (NT)

[Xenotime]

16. IMPEACHMENT IS MANDITORY!!!

Otherwise you let a criminal go free. This country has been ruined by the criminal acts of this administration.

[Scoody Boo]

18. Even with a Majority, I don't think impeachment will happen.

Too many Democrats are campaigning with the promise that they won't seek impeachment. If a Democrat made such a campaign promise, I expect him to adhere to it. Situational ethics are what I expect out of the Republicans, not Democrats. So we won't have the numbers.

I think there will be a bit of musical chairs after the November Selections no matter who wins a majority. I think that Cheney will be out and Condi will replace him early next year. That way she will be eligible for two full terms of office as President if pigs fly out of everyone's ass and Bush is impeached.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. I've had a change of mind

I used to think that it would be in this country's best interests to get rid of Bush and his gang if the Democrats regain control of Congress in November, however I'm beginning to think that it would be even better to use whatever power we gain in Congress to stymie, blockade, and otherwise frustrate Bush into "irrelevancy". If we tie him down with enough investigations, demands for accountability, and fight hard against his legislative agenda, we might well be able to keep him too busy to start more NEEDLESS pre-emptive wars and keep Bush from grabbing more powers to which he is NOT entitled. Also, even if we ran Bush out of town, we'd still have to deal with his REPUBLICAN successor for another two (2) years. Additionally, we have WAY too much that needs to be done that should've been done already in regards to (really) securing our country and improving the health and well-being of our fellow citizens. Attempting impeachment could drain us of any "political capital" we would gain by winning big in November and could backfire on us in 2008 when we might be able to win back the White House and continue on the path towards reversing some of the damage on our democracy and our citizens inflicted by Bush and the Republicans over the past 6-10 years. Although I personally think that Bush is even more deserving of impeachment than Richard Nixon ever was, in the current political climate, impeachment doesn't really seem to be too feasible. If Democrats get overwhelmingly elected in November, I don't think that it will be intended as a mandate for pursuing impeachment of Bush so much as it will be a repudiation of the Republicans and their ineptitude at governance. Voters, especially the ones that may be wavering Republicans, will want to see some positive results not a "war" between the Democrats and Republicans over a possible impeachment, at least not without overwhelming support among members of both parties which, is not likely there.

[paparush]

20. BRING EM ON!!! LETS ROLL!! (and then) MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Impeachment is ****MUST******

This administration and this president, quite simply, have broken ***serious*** laws. They didn't parse the meaning of 'is' during a deposition on a bullshit charge. They didn't get a stupid fucking blowjob in a moment of stupid fucking sexual selfishness.

They have committed treason.

They engineered what I continue to argue is a coup d'etat.

They have viollated the 4th ammedment rights of millions of our citizens.

They committed sedition with their ties to foreign governments.

And that's just off the top of my head.

True enough, those charges need to be proven. And that's where impeacment comes in. It is step one to putting them in prison.

Impeach

Remove

Try

Convict

Imprison.

More here:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Husb2Sparkly/4

and here:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Husb2Sparkly/8

[Orsino]

22. If Congress doesn't impeach him, they are endorsing...

...his myriad crimes. If * isn't impeached, impeachment has no meaning, and the president is not responsible to Congress. Period.

[Johonny]

23. What's the point of winning then?

If congress isn't going to install a check and balance to Bush then frankly why vote them into office. I see no way a congress that really over saw Bush wouldn't impeach him for his clear abuse of power.

[leftofthedial]

24. we need to nip the pardon machine in the bud

we need to keep the fascists from using the media and the absurdly compromised religious infrastructure to make their crimes into matters of "opinion"

we cannot let this gang of criminals off the hook again