I have come to a conclusion.... SCREW IMPEACHMENT.....

[Rosco T.]

.. as anything resembling a priority for the new house/senate.

We will have about 700 days until the '08 elections.

700 days.

ITEM NUMERO UNO: SECURE THE VOTING PROCESS AND RETURN IT TO THE PEOPLE.

- outlaw any machine that counts ballots.
- any touch screen machine must have ONLY one function - print the human countable ballot
- overturn/abolish the opressive voter registration regulations
- make it a FELONY to turn away a voter without giving them a VOTE
- screw 'provisional' ballots, a ballot is a ballot, COUNT THEM.

Next -

- end the debate on universal health care, set the starting age for Medicare at -9 months (ie. pre-natle care)
- REQUIRE Medicare to negoiate for better drug prices, including letting Medicare import from Canada if necessary. If freaking Wal-Mart can do $4 co-pays, then so can Medicare.
- reverse the Bankruptcy bill
- reverse the Credit Card scam bill
- stop the Illegal WireTapping
- reverse the 2006 Enabling Act
- goddam rebuild New Orleans
- end the no-bid give away to Helliburton
- end the tax breaks to the Oil Companies
- start several 'manhattan projects' for Solar, Wind, other energy sources
- roll back Dumya's tax breaks to the millionaires
- and I'm sure we can think of a dozen more important things...

and, while this is going on, INVESTIGATE THE HELL OUT OF THEM ALL. Turn John Conyers and his amazing Supoena Squad loose. Expose every single stinking evil deed to the public and world. Put all the evidence out there that the moment these bastids leave office, the criminal trials can begin (and that includes the Hague).

THEN.. and ONLY THEN.... start the 'impeachment' AFTER the '08 elections... there will still be 2 months to do so and NOT give the filthy 'thugs any thing to run with, let the only thing be seen before November '08 be their crimes...

[Vinca]

1. You make a good point. Impeachment is the easy out for this bunch.

They deserve to be tried for war crimes.

[hogwyld]

2. And then "waterboarded" in club Gitmo

Or send 'em to Nurenburg and string them all up in a nice pretty row.

[pat_k]

23. Impeachment is the only thing that says . . .

. . .they are doing intolerable harm to the Constitution, which we are sworn to defend. The threast must be removed -- now. This attack must be turned back.

Impeachment is a weapon of defense. Punishment must follow.

If the nation does not confront what has happened head on, we cannot move forward with Honesty. Impeachment is the only way to do it.

[lonestarnot]

25. Are there enough people in the U.S. to carry on with all this investigation

of all their unconstitutional, illegal wrongdoing? And two years, that won't be enough time will it? :rofl:

[pat_k]

42. Could be forced out in a flash . . . but prosecutions could indeed take years. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485516

[lonestarnot]

73. Yes! Come on numbers!

[spacemanspiff]

65. I agree wholeheartedly

We must impeach to save our country. If we do not follow the constitution- what exactly are we following?

[pat_k]

72. I've been scratching my head about that one!

. . .and asking "So, what is Pelosi's magic solution to "rule by signing statement."

[FloridaPat]

3. Had Reagan & Bush1 gotten what they deserved, there would not

have been the fiasco we've had the last 6 years. These people belong in jail. And if they are not impeached, they get to retire in 08 with a $400,000 retirement package, money to set up offices and the secret service protecting them for the rest of their lives. Our congress should be able to do more than one thing at a time. Just think of the consequences of finding * and company guilty of lying us into a war. Who has to pay for it? Do we get our money back from all those non-bid contracts? Do the people who's sons and daughters, husbands and wives get to sue the repubs for the death of their loved ones? These people deserve hell on earth because they have given so many people hell on earth. They have destroyed our country. They have put us into debt for generations. They do not deserve a get out of jail free card. And if they are not stopped, they will contiue. Two months is not long enough to impeach and have a trial.

[Rosco T.]

6. You also have to be realistic...

unless we have 66 LOCKED Senate votes.. there is no removal from office. Impeachment BEFORE the '08 elections will just energize the 'thugs to come out and vote for more theives.

[pat_k]

27. When principle demands action, failure to act is a betrayal of principle. . .

There is no escape from the choice: Duty or Complicity.

The impeachment process begins long before Articles of Impeachment are drafted. The case must be presented in the court of public opinion long before it makes it's way to the Senate.

If a member of Congress believes the Constitution is being harmed, their FIRST duty is to notify the public that the Constitution is being harmed and that defensive action is necessary. (In this case, the defensive action required is to remove the threat by removing them from office via impeachment or resignation).

Whether they stand alone, or with the whole of Congress, if they believe there is a threat, they have a duty to speak. Their oath is an individual oath. Their duty an individual duty. Even if they believe it will be a "charge of the light brigade" speaking out is a moral imperative.

Reality is what it is. Bush and Cheney have nullified vast swathes of the constitution. They confess to doing so themselves with the claims they make and the actions they take.

Our leaders know this. His abuses are legendary.

The vast majority of the Democratic caucus is keeping the public in the dark, invoking "strategic," partisan rationalizations for doing so. That is dereliction of duty of the worst sort.

Silence is complicity.

She is bending over backwards to give the Fascists an unassailable argument -- i.e., "If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress who are sworn to defend it would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Rather than calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of all charges coming from the 'Looney left.'"

----------------------------------------------
What makes her morally reprehensible and politically wrong-headed pledge such a blow, is that it was completely unnecessary.

It is impossible to carry out their duty to defend the Constitution if the only mechanism by which certain types of threats can be eliminated is "off the table." It is effectively a violation of her congressional oath to say impeachment is "off the table."

All she had to do was point that out.

It is like asking whether use of military force is off the table. The answer to that one is ALWAYS "nothing is off the table." You may consider it a weapon of last resort, but you NEVER take the weapons we have made available for our defense "off the table."

Had she just pointed out those simple truths, she would have demonstrated commitment to principle. (Still could have accomplished her wrong-headed fear-based goal with "last resort" assertions, but she backed them into that corner by failing to run on impeachment, which they should have done from the outset, or at least as of the Hamdan ruling.)

----------------------------------------------
The Dems were complicit when they let Reagan off the hook and allowed Bush I to happen, which made it possible for there to be a Bush II.

They listened to the "do what they want or they will call us names" people on the Authorization to Use Military Force. The Party as a whole and many of those who voted for it are paying a high price -- with Kerry being the most consequential (that vote alone may be responsible for allowing them to get close enough to steal another term).

Complicity with crime is NEVER good politics.

For the sake of the nation, I hope they learn that soon.

Revised Oath (Changes Mandated by Pelosi's "Pledge")

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

[pat_k]

26. Spot on!

The pledge was so morally AND politically wrong.

It is impossible to carry out their duty to defend the Constitution if the only mechanism by which certain types of threats can be eliminated is "off the table." It is effectively a violation of her congressional oath to say impeachment is "off the table."

It is like asking whether use of military force is off the table. The answer to that one is ALWAYS "nothing is off the table." Using the weapons we have made available for our defense must always a last resort, but you NEVER take any of them "off the table."

All she had to do was point that out.

By doing so she would have demonstrated commitment to principle. (Still could have accomplished her wrong-headed fear-based goal with "last resort" assertions, but she backed them into that corner by failing to run on impeachment, which they should have done from the outset, or at least as of the Hamdan ruling.)

[Ganja Ninja]

4. Absolutely right.

It's more important to destroy the Republican party as a whole and undo the damage they've done then to simply remove Bush from office. Investigating them will be far more effective in the long term.

[pat_k]

28. You "destroy them" by giving them cover?

. . .strange sort of approach. She is bending over backwards to give the Fascists an unassailable argument -- i.e., "If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress who are sworn to defend it would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Rather than calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of all charges coming from the 'Looney left.'"

And it is hard to image what she thinks she can accomplish under "rule by signing statement" with her shiney new non-veto-proof majority.

Bush and Cheney routinely violate our laws, they refuse to execute and enforce them, and they are dismantling the institutions that serve the people. Passing more laws for Bush and Cheney to nullify with signing statements, ignore, or actively undermine doesn't strike me as a very gratifying endeavor.

They are promising to renovate a house that has been knocked off it's foundation. It doesn't make sense.

What "Positive Agenda" could possibly offset the pain and destruction that will be sown every day that the massive power of the American Presidency remains in the hands of lawless, ruthless, ideologues drunk with the unconstitutional power they have grabbed?

What "positive agenda" can we be proud of when we remain a War Criminal nation?

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda.

P.S. One of the worst parts is that she didn't even have to do it to accomplish her wrong-headed goal of keeping the mythical backlash beast at bay, as descibed in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2484735">post #27

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. All of those reversals would be lovely but you need 2/3 to overturn

Shrub vetos.
The Shrub has to be impeached.

[Rosco T.]

8. WHY AREN'T PEOPLE REMEMBERING...

IMPEACHMENT = majority of the house = indictment.

CONVICTION = 2/3 of the senate vote = removal from office.

Impeachment means jack shit. If we don't have the 2/3 LOCK in the senate, we got nothing.

[elocs]

24. A whole lot of people here just don't seem to understand that.

This is stuff that people should have learned in high school civics class. Impeachment does not equal conviction. What is it about this concept that is so difficult to understand? Impeaching Bush will energize the Republican base and piss off a lot of swing voter who expect the Democrats to actually do something other than to extract a pound of flesh from Bush and then see him walk when the Senate does not convict him. Reality is a cruel mistress.

[pat_k]

32. Because it is irrelevant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2484735

[pat_k]

30. Your point??

. . .
The impeachment process begins long before Articles of Impeachment are drafted. The case must be presented in the court of public opinion long before it makes it's way to the Senate.

If a member of Congress believes the Constitution is being harmed, their FIRST duty is to notify the public that the Constitution is being harmed and that defensive action is necessary. (In this case, the defensive action required is to remove the threat by removing them from office via impeachment or resignation).

Whether they stand alone, or with the whole of Congress, if they believe there is a threat, they have a duty to speak. Their oath is an individual oath. Their duty an individual duty. Even if they believe it will be a "charge of the light brigade" speaking out is a moral imperative. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2484735">More. . .

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. If the House's indictment is as damaging as it should be, do you think the

Repugs will stay in lockstep for that long after?

[Rosco T.]

14. Yes..

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. Do you remember Watergate?

[Rosco T.]

60. I remember when Republicans had some principles...

.. what we have today are not 'Watergate' Republicans.

[pat_k]

43. They will be VERY motivated to take the "out" that keeps the Pres in Republican. . .

. . .hands.

Very motivated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485516

[pat_k]

33. Absolutely.

It is simply not rational to weigh only one side; to considering the risks of action while completely ignoring the the possible benefits of action and risks of inaction. It is odd that the "reality-based community" is so willing to accept such a flawed and partial analysis. Particularly when the promoters of the analysis are folk like Paul Weyrich and Karl Rove.

When the risk of impeachment becomes real, the Repubs could force them to resign in a month (just one of the many possible scenarios is toward the end of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400">this post). Bush and Cheney could do what they have to to keep the Presidency for the Republicans (and if Dems keep pointing out http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2469259">how they do it, we prove this is not a "parisan coup")

Their perennial fear --"Ohhh, the evil backlash beast (or some other bad thing) will get us if we <fill in the blank>. Tragically, <fill in the blank> is always a moral imperative or difficult stance. When they are unwilling to take the actions that are demanded by truth and principle, they will not tell the truth (else they would have to take the action) and they will betray their principles.

For years, <fill in the blank> has been "Impeach BushCheney." With a handful of exceptions, Democratic members of Congress have not spoken the truth because are unwilling to declare their intent to act on it. They cannot say "Bush and Cheney are destroying the fabric of our constitutional democracy with their audacious claims to Unconstitutional powers." with one breath, and then say "But don't worry, we have no intention of impeaching anyone."

The same self-destructive impulses are behind the "time for bipartisanship" meme that the DC establishment is currently pushing. As usual, they have things assbackwards. The antidote to so-called "partisanship" is NOT "bipartisanship" it is Reality. You rise above partisanship when you confront truth and reality head on and take the actions demanded by the facts.

The only way any elected official or candidate can prove commitment to our founding principles over party is to fight for those principles regardless of partisan concerns.

There is nothing partisan about declaring your intent to see that War Criminals are brought to justice. There is nothing partisan declaring your intent to rescue the Constitution.

Instead of recognizing this and actually rising above partisanship by fighting for core principles, the so-called Democratic strategists think the antidote can be found in cynically "going along to get along" and saying they seek bipartisanship and won't do anything the fascist faction might object to, which people across the spectrum assume is insincere (as demonstrated the assertion that Pelosi is just mouthing what the right wants to hear to mollify them -- something I have heard repeatedly from folks on our side.)

Nothing could be more wrong-headed than attempting to "rise above" poisonous partisanship by playing more partisan games. When they buy into the "bipartisan" meme, they condemn themselves to the substance-less world of image.

It is mystifying that more of them do not recognize the fundamental irrationality of their "strategery" when 100% of their "tactical" moves are (1) actions that betray principle; (2) the least difficult of the available options or (3) put off a difficult or principled action to a later, unspecified date. Like the "I'll quit tomorrow addict, they assuage guilt and shame by telling themselves "we'll do the right thing later." Tragically, just like the addict, "later" never comes because the "strategerists" always identify the reasons it is a bad time to do a tough thing.

In the coming months, perhaps we will find a big enough cluestick to snap them out of their denial.

[pat_k]

29. . . .even if you had 2/3, there's no magical solution to "rule by signing statement"

. . .A man who nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (passed 90-9) with yet another abuse of signing statement will stop at nothing to grab Unconstitutional powers and piss on the principle of consent.

Promising to renovate a house that has been knocked off it's foundation is lunacy. I'm very confused by the number of anti-fascists, who know Bush and Cheney are destroying our foundation, and yet are applauding Pelosi's pretense that we can "move forward" without confronting the truth as a nation (and impeachment is the ONLY way to confront that truth). Trying to maintaining the pretense that we aren't under attack -- that we can "fix this" politics as usual" -- is a doomed approach.

[TriMetFan]

7. Your post has made very good points.,......

but I also think that the reason why they are not going to try to impeach Bush is because they are going to go for Federal Chargers against Bush and company. Now just think how beautiful it would look to have Bush escorted out of The White House in handcuffs.

[pat_k]

34. That does nothing to rescue the Constitution. . .

Impeachment is the weapon we gave Congress to defend the Constitution against attacks from within the halls of power.

Impeachment is defense -- stop the attack on the Constitution (and recognize THERE IS an attack). Prosecution and punishment follows, but defense is the FIRST priority.Like a cop pulling over a drunk driver to protect the public from harm. He faces justice later, but "taking the keys" is No. 1.

The police wouldn't be much use to us if they followed Madam Pelosi's example (i.e., They wouldn't get any drunks off the road if they kept their distance and said "Gee, we'd better pretend we AREN'T pulling him over! No sirens now!")

What part of "Drunk with Power" don't our so-called leaders understand?

[TriMetFan]

57. Very good post.

And I do agree with what you say "taking the keys away". But until they "Madam Pelosi" and others like Congressman John Conyers have the power, there is no need to wring our hands about impeachment. I hope for the Good of America that the Democrats can take control. After the election then we can start putting the pressure on The Democratic Party to move forward with impeachment or neutering Bush. Just remember The Democrats got to win first for anything to happen and then we all better be ready for how messed up the Government is. Because we all are going to have to roll up our sleeves to clean up the mess that this Fascist Republi-Cons are going to leave behind.

[pat_k]

62. Yes, now they are in a box, but they should have been running on it all . .

. . .along.

This is something we really need to understand, because it comes up over and over and over again.

Almost without fail, Dems fail to take up a fight for principle until it is "safe" -- until they think they can win (and usually, since that time never seems to come, they usually don't fight at all). Every time they do this, they confirm their image as weak, unprincipled, "moral relativists.

There are ALWAYS benefits to standing up for principle, even if you think it will be a "charge of the light brigade."

And there is NO tolerable rationalization for betraying their oath. The first, first duty demanded by that oath is to notify the public that the Constitution is being harmed and that defensive action is necessary. (In this case, the defensive action required is to remove the threat by removing them from office via impeachment or resignation)..

This is our country. We are part and parcel of protecting it. And they have a duty to let us know when they believe we need to stand up and fight. Because they have been unwilling to say "we will fight to remove these people, come what may" they have been unable to accuse (they sound like idiots when they try it -- "They are destroying the constitution, but hey, don't worry, we;re not gonna impeach anyone.")

Yes. It is water under the bridge this time. They did not speak out before the election and have thus condemned themselves to once again looking weak and unprincipled. But if we can get some simple truths and moral principles injected into the beltway psyche -- the reasons they SHOULD HAVE been doing it -- perhaps we will see them fighting some good fights, come what may, win or loose, in the future.

We all have a choice. The right side of history, or the wrong side. The "winners" are often held in contempt by those looking back -- and so are the ones who stood on the sidelines and said "We can't win this one so we'd better not bother." (What could be more irrational or self-fulfilling?)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2484735">Related Post. . .

[TriMetFan]

66. I understand were your coming from, but look.....

at were our Nation is at right now. There is no time to bitch about impeachment at this time. We need to take back America first and the only way to do so is to have The Democratic Party to win. I'm an ex-Republican turn Democratic because I don't want to see my Nation America fall between the cracks even more. That is why I say First The Democrats Party has to win, them we all can start pressuring then to impeach, but until they (The Democrats) win there is nothing that can be done. Like Randi Rhodes says "The Democratic Party can't even hold a meeting in Congress unless they are shoved into the basement". Also I don't think the Democrats are betraying their oath. You got to look at the whole picture. Who has control of the media and power right now? It sure is not the true Republican Party that I once belong to. This Republican Party is a Fascist Party that would not stop even if it meant it killing a kid to get their way. Just look at New Orleans. So unless the Democrats can win in a landslide impeachment is out the door at this time, but neutering Bush for the next 2 years can also help.

example: Lets say The Democrats pass a higher Federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7. Then when the bill lands on Bush the wacko's desk, who will the bad guy be if this son of a bitch veto's it??

Don't get me wrong I would love and I mean love to see Bush and Cheney both get impeached. Now that would be like one hell of a dream for me. But it does no good for us Democrats not to stand united and that is what is needed at this time and in the future.

[pat_k]

68. Had the Dems run on impeachment,

. . .they would have WON more elections.

Taking up the fight for impeachment is not just the RIGHT thing to do; it is the WINNING thing to do.

That is what is so tragic about their dereliction of duty -- it undermines the image of the Party as a whole which weakens every candidate.

When they are derelict in their duty, they cannot speak in terms that inspire the electorate. There is perhaps nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak. The Democratic Party would be winning more elections if they hadn't sold themselves on the absurd notion that "voters won't like us if we do our duty." We probably wouldn't be having this discussion because 2004 would have been a landslide big enough to overwhelm the election thieves.

The beltway establishment is an insular world that has been getting further and further away from reality. Their assumption that running on impeachment would have been our downfall is so firmly entrenched in that world that it never gets challenged. A very big problem since the assumption has no basis in reality.

Always be suspect when somebody says "We gotta win first, then we can talk about <fill in the blank>" (principled, "difficult" thing). If we don't think we can talk about <fill in the blank> and WIN, then we are essentially putting aside the principle of consent in favor of an Un-American "ends justifies the means" belief. Every time we question the assumptions behind "We gotta win first. . ." assertions, they fall apart in short order.

BTW, I use the term fascist very purposely. It is no longer Repub v. Dem; it is fascists v. anti-fascists. There are a substantial number of Republicans who recognize that fascists have taken over their party. We need to stop viewing "them" as a big bad lump. I often connect better with some of these Republicans because they were originally driven to the Republican Party by the weakness of the Dems. Some find it very appealing to jump the fence and light a fire under the Democratic "asses."

But, back to the topic at hand.

As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." It's certainly no secret that of what legitimate support Bush gets, much of it is simply based on a, carefully crafted, "strong leader" perception.

The fascists may have alienated enough people to get Dems elected on Nov. 7, but it is their audacious overreaching, corruption, lawlessness, and stupidity that are driving the shift away from Republicans, not anything the Dems have actually done. There was NO upside to keeping mum on impeachment, and a lot of downsides.

Reality is what it is. GWB is grabbing more and more Unconstitutional power and using it to benefit his cronies, abuse signing statements to nullify our laws, violate his oath of office by refusing to execute our laws, and to blatantly violate national and international law to bully other nations -- nations who have given up on looking to the good will of the American people to intervene in crises because we have clearly surrendered our sovereignty to Bush by tolerating his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to be a "unitary authoritarian executive."

In the face of all this, the Democratic Party makes the unsupportable assumption that "talking about impeachment is political doom." For years before Pelosi's "pledge", the beltway establishment Dems have been dong everything in their power to make sure all talk of impeachment was "off the table."

With the ONE weapon that We the People gave them to defend us from a chief executive drunk power "off the table," they are incapable of talking about the threat in coherent terms. They sound muddled, confused, all over the place.

Because the "impeachment is off limits" edict makes it impossible for Dems to be clear, they just keep confirming their damgaging, wishy-washy image (a central part of their biggest problem: the perception that they are weak).

As long as it is "off the table" it will continue to be impossible for Dems to have any sort of a clear message; will continue to be muddled and wishy-wishy.

This state of affairs can be transformed overnight into an inspiring message of hope and a declaration of our power by confronting the truth head on and being willing to call on the nation to act; to remind the nation that it is We the People who are the sovereigns here. There is nothing more inspiring than reminding ourselves of the treasured principles we established in our Constitution.

Americans see through manipulation and hypocrisy. Countless citizens have opted out because they are sick of it. Had more members of the Democratic Party been out there speaking the truth clearly and letting the nation know what those truths demanded of us, they would have reached and motivated many who have said "to hell with them all" to get back into the game.

Tragically, as long as the Democratic leadership believes "impeachment must be off the table" they will be trapped in a world of double-talk and euphemism, which inspires no one. Even the folks "out here" defending Nancy's pledge don't feel good about it -- they are making apologies and excuses.

I am so passionate about this because I want Democratic candidates to win in landslides across the nation, in election after election -- and they will do just that if they learn to stand and fight for the principles and institutions we established in the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is impossible to speak in inspiring terms about who we are as a nation if they refuse to point to the fascists and say "That is the OPPOSITE of who we are -- and we must prove it by removing the threat they pose to our common contract: the Constitution; the soul of the nation. They have broken the terms of our common contract. The ONLY way to reassert the terms is through Impeachment, which is the mechanism we put in our common contract to do just that."

As long as "politics" remains a game in which voters are viewed as nothing more than pawns, more and more voters will opt out. Even the discussion about the need for Pelosi to "mollify" rather than tell the truth is a discussion that views voters as game pieces.

If the Democrats wake up to reality and start speaking in strong and true terms they bring back so many of those who have opted out they could stop worrying about manipulating that tiny fraction "in the middle" they are always so obsessed with.

And finally, even if there were NOT political benefits to doing the right thing, all of us, especially our public servants, still have a moral obligation to do the right thing. Fortunately there are ALWAY benefits to taking the path grounded in simple truth and moral principles.

If you are interested, there's a further discussion of the impeachment-related political benefits in the "Unfounded Fears and Realistic Rewards" section of http://january6th.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html">To Impeach, or Not Impeach: That's the Wrong Question.

Also, you might be interested in something I posted back in April: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x997060">IMPEACH BUSH" is a message of hope and a declaration of our power

As I said in the previous post, this is not about knocking them for past mistakes, rather it is about RECOGNIZING that what they have been doing IS a mistake, both morally and politically. The folks out here have a far better shot at "getting it" then they do inside the beltway. When we get it, we can push them in the right direction and help them STOP repeating and compounding those mistakes in the future.

[NNN0LHI]

9. If high crimes have been committed we have no choice but to impeach

And there are good reasons for that to be the case.

Don

[pat_k]

44. Hear, Hear!

In addition to the moral imperative,

It would do more to address the BIGGEST problem members of the Democratic Party have -- that they are weak -- than ANYTHING else they could do.

Impotently trying to pass "good laws" when Bush abuses signing statements to nullify or simply refuses to execute is DEFINITELY not the way to show strength.

Perhaps the most tragic part of all this is that the polls make it crystal clear that it would be a political WINNER to accuse Bush and Cheney and declare their intent to stop the harm to the Constitution by removing them from office -- via resignation (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485516">the preferred route), but if they must, by force through impeachment.

--------------------

Despite the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda being beaten into the national psyche by the beltway establishment, they have gooten ONLY 44% of the electorate to say "shouldn't impeach"

In this climate, it is lunacy look at the numbers (below) and fail to recognize that you are looking at a FLOOR. If our so-called leaders opened a mouth and told the truth, the 51% who say "impeachment is a priority" would become 65% percent overnight. (A majority of the current "don't impeach Dems" would move; at least half of the independents would, and we would pick up about 5% of the white male Republicans who revel in accusation and punishment. (They are PISSED at Bush and will welcome an outlet for their anger.)

And the numbers can only move one way. The prima fascia case against Bush, Cheney, et al is VERY easy to make (in fact, Feingold already made the central case in the =context of Censure).





http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-21-2006/0004456423&EDATE=">Newsweek Press Release with Detailed Results

[dipsydoodle]

10. make it a FELONY

Was thinking about this yesterday. In the UK laws can be made to apply retrospectively. Is it the same in the USA. If so then maybe a law could be passed making it a criminal offence to deny anyone their lawful vote with a penalty of life sentence without parole for transgressors.

[Sherman A1]

13. Don't think so

the principle of "Ex Post Facto" prevents that if I understand correctly. I don't think laws can nor should be applied retroactively, to big a can of worms.

[Rosco T.]

15. You mean like Dumya got his 'retroactive immunity' on war crimes?

[pat_k]

35. Oh yeah. Yes. And Proved their consciousness of guilt and malice aforethought

An interesting phrase disappeared between Bush's original version and the final.

The phrase: "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE."

The phrase itself demonstrates a recognition that rights actually existed, and the intent to violate those rights through non-enforcement with malice aforethought.

Yes. It is just that simple.

Case Closed on the newly inaugurated War Criminal Nation.

If they are Rights they Cannot be Unenforceable.
-----------------------------

• Final version
  (Enrolled Bill) as passed by both Houses
  
  SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.
  
  (a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
  
  To view the bill search at http://thomas.loc.gov (enter "S.3930.ENR" and select the Bill Number radio button. The printer friendly version is easiest to search)


Final version
(Enrolled Bill) as passed by both Houses

SEC. 5. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.

(a) In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

To view the bill search at http://thomas.loc.gov (enter "S.3930.ENR" and select the Bill Number radio button. The printer friendly version is easiest to search)

Original
White House version
SEC. 6. SATISFACTION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories. . .

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf

---------------------
Call it what it is

*** The War Criminals Protection Act of 2006 ***

[Sherman A1]

11. Superb!!!

I believe you are the only one who has even mentioned the bankruptcy bill in a very, very long time, which is important in and of itself, but also important as a part of the huge screwing of the American Middle Class and Worker. Impeachment (and even a string of investigations) would probably just engergize the folks with "their version of truth", however just having one house of Congress is enough I hope to stop a complete and continuing backward slide for the common folks. That is really all I am hoping for at this point. Half a Loaf is better than nuthin' --- Well Said!!!

[pat_k]

36. Is "probably. . " enough to rationalize exonerating them?

She is bending over backwards to give the Fascists an unassailable argument -- i.e., "If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress who are sworn to defend it would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Rather than calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of all charges coming from the 'Looney left.'"

Members of Congress have a sworn duty to defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to fulfill their oath. They can take up the fight to impeach and remove, or betray their oath.

. .Perhaps a case can be made that the benefits of taking up the fight for impeachment are outweighed by the risks of doing so, but I have yet to hear one that holds up. I have found that a lot of people on "our side" -- and you may or may not be one of them -- have given little or no thought to the benefits of action. They've just sort of "soaked up" the conventional wisdom that "something very bad' will happen if Dems stand up for X. (Where has been Alito filibuster, January 6th, Impeachment, War Criminals Protection Act. . . the list is tragically long and getting longer all the time). . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961">More. . .

[Sherman A1]

67. I would love for Mr. Bush

to be impeached and dragged before the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague and Yes, Members of Congress have also taken an oath. Do you really expect to get an impeachment even if the Dem's take sweeping majorities in both houses and at what cost to any hope for national unity? I despise what has happened just as much as anyone else here, but at what point do you MoveOn and look to the future rather than the past? There is a point for idealism and a point for pragmatism.

[pat_k]

69. Absolutely.

Of course we could have seen Bush and Cheney impeached long before now if our leaders had been doing their duty.

But whether or not "they" could "get impeachment" is completely irrelevant.

Their first duty is not to "get impeachment"; their first duty -- the one they are derelict in -- is to notify the public that the Constitution is under attack and that defensive action is required to rescue it.

In our current crisis, the defensive action required is to remove the threat by removing Bush and Cheney from office via impeachment or resignation.

This is OUR country. We the People are the ones who ultimately "get impeachment."

The process doesn't start with Articles of Impeachment. It doesn't end with judgment in the Senate.

The process starts in the court of public opinion and ends with removal from office by resignation or by force through impeachment. Between those two points things can play out in an infinite number of ways. There is no way of knowing.

The cool thing about duty is that you just do it, come what may.

"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall"

The Choice

We all have a choice: the right side of history or the wrong side. Win or lose.

History is a harsh judge. When we look back at the times that evil has won, the "winners" disgust us, and we hold the ones who stood on the sidelines because they believed "We can't win this one so we'd better shut up" in contempt.

At our founding, some who claimed to "hate" slavery were nonetheless complicit in the morally indefensible "compromise" that allowed our fellow human beings to be enslaved. Undoubtedly they believed they "couldn't win" if they drew a line in the sand and so did not draw the line.

We may never stop paying the price for that horrible compromise.

We face another such defining turning point.

There is No Downside

For years before Pelosi's "pledge", the beltway establishment Dems have been dong everything in their power to make sure all talk of impeachment was "off the table." Their assumption that "something bad" would happen is so firmly entrenched in the insular beltway world that it never gets challenged. A very big problem since the assumption has no basis in reality.

What's so tragic is that there is no upside to following the establishment's "impeachment is off limits" edict.

Reality is what it is. GWB is grabbing more and more Unconstitutional power and using it to benefit his cronies, abuse signing statements to nullify our laws, violate his oath of office by refusing to execute our laws, blatantly violate national and international law, and bully other nations -- nations who have given up on looking to the good will of the American people to intervene in crises because we have clearly surrendered our sovereignty to Bush by tolerating his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to be "unitary authoritarian executive."

It is impossible to speak in inspiring terms about who we are as a nation if they refuse to point to the fascists and say "That is the OPPOSITE of who we are -- and we must prove it by removing the threat they pose to our common contract: the Constitution; the soul of the nation. They have put the contract into breach. The ONLY way to reassert the terms is through Impeachment, the mechanism we established to defend against attacks from within."

With the ONE weapon that We the People gave them to defend us from a chief executive drunk with power "off the table," Dems are incapable of speaking coherently about anything. They are trapped in a world of doubletalk and euphemism because they are desperately trying to avoid having to say anything about the elephant that's trampling the things we treasure most. (Because if they said something about it, they would have to do something about it.)

There is perhaps nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

Even the folks "out here" defending Nancy's pledge don't feel good about it -- they are making apologies and excuses.

If the Party establishment hadn't sold themselves on the absurd notion that "voters won't like us if we do our duty." We probably wouldn't be having this discussion because 2004 would have been a landslide big enough to overwhelm the election thieves.

[OneBlueSky]

16. #1 should be overturning the Military Commissions Act of 2006 . . . n/t

.

[mmonk]

21. Yes. That's fundamental.

[pat_k]

37. The content of that Act is part of impeachment. . .

Proves their intent to commit crime with malice aforethought. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485216">Post #35)

Impeachment is the only thing that says "They aare doing intolerable harm to the Constitution, which we are sworn to defend. The threast must be removed -- now. This attack must be turned back.]

Impeachment is a weapon of defense. Passing a resolution Nullifying every illegitimate law they forced through must follow. Punishment must follow. But impeachment is No. 1. Our foundation is being destroyed -- and Pelosi is promising to renovate. It makes no sense to renovate a house that has been knocked off it's foundation.

If the nation does not confront what has happened head on, we cannot move forward with Honesty. Impeachment is the only way to do it.

[mmonk]

18. I respectfully disagree.

But I will depend on Conyers to do the right things.

[Theduckno2]

19. Yes, investigate; shine a lot of sunshine on these 'germs'.

My subject line was inspired by another DUer's post from a while back.

Shine a light on all those no-bid contracts, the leaking of CIA operative identities, memos and official orders relating to detentions and torture, the entire 'germ' ridden administration.

I'm sure that this 'medicine' will taste bitter at times, but as your mother might say; "It's good for you!".

What does that old quote say about not learning from the past? We have to make sure that the history of this administration is made available for all to see.

[pat_k]

38. What you suggest is "politics as usual" . .

. . . and fails to acknowledge the greivous harm they have done to our Constitution.

Just as the police are sworn to protect the public, members of Congress are sworn to support and defend the Constitution.

When we established our Constitution, we understood the power we were entrusting to our civil officials, and we understood that some would abuse that power to destroy our Constitution from within the executive or judiciary. When the threat comes from within the halls of power, removing the threat is the remedy, and Impeachment is the "weapon" we gave them to force removal when the official does not remove him or herself via resignation.

The balance of power is not equally divided. When we vested the power to impeach in Congress, we put a big fat thumb on the scales in favor of the institution through which we express our will.

Why would you hesitate to call on Congress to use the precise tool we put in their hands to repair this type of breach? Impeachment is how we say "You broke our common contract and abused the power entrusted to you; we are enforcing the original terms and taking that power from you."

As long as Bush and Cheney wield the massive power of the American Presidency, the devastation of our constitutional democracy continues (more dollars stolen from our pockets to line the pockets of cronies; more dollars and decades added to the burden of debt on our children; continued dismantling of the entities that enforce and execute the laws we pass; more corruption of our election systems by a corrupt justice department; growing disdain for the U.S. throughout the world. . . the list is endless).

Why wouldn't we do everything in our power to remove power from the rogue forces and enlist our fellow Americans to re-assert their sovereignty through impeachment, the process we created to serve this purpose?

[HamdenRice]

20. Lovely dream -- Now some realism

OmmSweetOmm has it exactly right. The Democrats will not be able to advance this or any other legislative agenda because Bush has veto power, and the Democrats will need 2/3 to overturn the veto, the same 2/3 needed in the Senate for removal.

The only power the Democrats will have in the short term is the power of investigation and oversight with subpoena power. Bush will be crippled and bogged down, but not emasculated.

But consider what will happen if there are hearings in the House on all the crimes and corruption FIRST -- possibly including complicity in terrorism and mass murder.

At that point, Republicans will have no choice but to vote with Democrats, just as the did during Watergate.

But even if Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed, there will not be a Democratic president. When Agnew and Nixon were removed/resigned, Congress was careful to have an orderly process in which the VP was removed first, and Congress retained control over Agnew's predecessor in accordance with the 25th Amendment. Even though the Democrats had a majority, they did not want to make it look like a party coup, so a moderate Republican, Gerry Ford, was appointed VP.

If Cheney, then Bush, are removed, expect an independent, clean Republican to be the caretaker until 2008. My bets are on John McCain or Colin Powell.

The legislative agenda begins in 2008, when Al Gore is re-elected with a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

[pat_k]

39. When the threat of impeachment becomes real, . . .

. . .they will have a VERY strong motive to take the only way out that would keep the Presidency in Republican hands.

The Dems just need to make sure the public knows that it is up to Bush and Cheney to "spare the nation" from the disruption of impeachment; can choose to keep the Presidency Republican. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee, that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, and therefore meets with our approval (through the people who represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress fighting for impeachment need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this (and they need to actually BE sincere, so they had better give the moral principles long hard thought).

They need to be clear that they actually want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan. If they are clear with themselves, they will be clear with the nation.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be removed by force, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH could be a very effective way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

--------------------------------
Few Republicans will tolerate the accusations for long -- may not even need to get to hearings if Accusation -- whether or not it is based in reality -- is so effective because it forces the defender onto the accusers "turf." ("I am not a crook" = "Nixon might be a crook?" = "Don't think of an elephant")

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse them in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism), debates about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:

• Whether or not unitary authoritarian executive nullifies the Constitution;
• Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;
• Whether or not Bush and Co abused power to terrorize the nation in a criminal war of aggression;
• Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

When the threat of impeachment becomes a reality, Repubs could start trying to force Bush and Cheney (or Cheney and Bush, as above) to resign within a week.

As I've pointed out in other posts to this thread, the goal is to stop the harm to the Constitution by removing the threat from office. Impeachment is one route to the goal, but the process starts LONG BEFORE Articles of Impeachment are drafted. The case must be presented in the court of public opinion long before it makes it's way to the Senate.

If a member of Congress believes the Constitution is being harmed, their FIRST DUTY is to notify the public that the Constitution is being harmed and that defensive action is necessary. (In this case, the defensive action required is to remove the threat by removing them from office via impeachment or resignation).

Whether they stand alone, or with the whole of Congress, if they believe there is a threat, they have a duty to speak. Their oath is an individual oath. Their duty an individual duty. Even if they believe it will be a "charge of the light brigade" speaking out is a moral imperative.

And it is time past time for members of Congress to open their mouths and do their duty.

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!

[pat_k]

22. Failure to accuse = Exoneration = "Accessory After the Fact" War Criminal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[Selatius]

31. Your list is good news. I'd be happy if Dems did what you just listed.

It's a whole hell of a lot better than what the Repubs are offering, which is more of the same.

[pat_k]

46. And they accomplish this under "rule by signing statement" how??

Post #28:

. . .Bush and Cheney routinely violate our laws, they refuse to execute and enforce them, and they are dismantling the institutions that serve the people. Passing more laws for Bush and Cheney to nullify with signing statements, ignore, or actively undermine doesn't strike me as a very gratifying endeavor.

They are promising to renovate a house that has been knocked off it's foundation. It doesn't make sense.

What "Positive Agenda" could possibly offset the pain and destruction that will be sown every day that the massive power of the American Presidency remains in the hands of lawless, ruthless, ideologues drunk with the unconstitutional power they have grabbed?

What "positive agenda" can we be proud of when we remain a War Criminal nation?

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda.

P.S. One of the worst parts is that she didn't even have to do it to accomplish her wrong-headed goal of keeping the mythical backlash beast at bay, as descibed in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2484735">post #27

[roamer65]

40. IMPEACH CHENEY

We need to get him out of office first. Focus the investigations on Cheney and the WHIG.

[pat_k]

41. . . ..Impeach both, but make sure the public knows "the deal" . . .

Post #39
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485516

[omega minimo]

45. obviously investigations and hearings precede impeachment

"and, while this is going on, INVESTIGATE THE HELL OUT OF THEM ALL. Turn John Conyers and his amazing Supoena Squad loose. Expose every single stinking evil deed to the public and world. Put all the evidence out there that the moment these bastids leave office, the criminal trials can begin (and that includes the Hague)."

You just countered your own point. Investigations and hearings precede impeachment and will lead to it.

[pat_k]

47. Nope. Starts in the court of public opinion, and their FIRST Duty. . .

. . .The impeachment process begins long before Articles of Impeachment are drafted. The case must be presented in the court of public opinion long before it makes it's way to the Senate.

If a member of Congress believes the Constitution is being harmed, their FIRST duty is to notify the public that the Constitution is being harmed and that defensive action is necessary. (In this case, the defensive action required is to remove the threat by removing them from office via impeachment or resignation).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2484735">More. . .

[omega minimo]

51. going in circles doesn't help

we already know "the Constitution is being harmed"

Congress members wonder why the public is not more outspoken about impeachment.

[pat_k]

52. That one's easy to answer. . .

Could it be the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda being beaten into the national psyche by the beltway establishment -- both Republican and Democratic?

You think they are ACTUALLY wondering?? If they thought more of us ought to be pissed, why are they beating the "shouldn't impeach" drum so hard and fast?

Are they really such wimps that they refuse to "lead" until they already have a following?

Despite the incessent "shouldn't impeach" drumbeat coming from our "leaders," they've only managed to get 44% to agree with them (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485728">Newsweek Poll in Post #44) the they have gooten ONLY 44% of the electorate to say "shouldn't impeach."

What is their rationalization for betraying their oath? I've lost track. That there aren't enough angry people out here? And because their aren't enough angry people out here, they have to be complicit with criminals? That their complicity and dereliction of duty is our fault?

. . .
The "strange silence" does not reflect a lack of alarm and outrage

The dismay and seething anger is all around us. But our "leaders" have failed to give voice to the outrage. When outrage is given no voice in the public square, people tend to keep it to themselves, believing they are alone.

When no one gives voice to outrage, the floodgates remain closed. But when a public figure speaks out and taps into the energy, whoosh!

I saw a microcosm of this after the theft of the 2004 Presidential election. I was on a Democracy for America conference call. From the back and forth, it sounded like there were maybe 5 or 10 people on the line as they talked about this or that agenda item and possible things to focus on as we "learned lessons" and "moved forward." There was little energy.

As the moderator neared the end of the agenda someone piped up "What about Ohio? What about the stolen election? What does Burlington plan to do about that?" Suddenly there was a chorus. Dozens talking at once. It was unbelievable. It sounded like there were about a hundred people on the line -- people who had been "strangely silent."

If no one had given voice to the anger, no one on that call would have thought that anyone else cared -- they would have withdrawn in silence. And the "leaders" would have been able to tell themselves the stolen election just isn't something that people are interested in. They would have walked away from the call believing everyone else was on board with their "let's move on" agenda, which was the opposite of the truth. In fact, the mother lode of energy was with the "It Ain't Over 'Til it's Over!" people.

We see this over and over again in ways large and small.

The unprecedented and amazing response to Keith Olbermann's first "Special Comment" is one such event. When he gave voice to the outrage, outraged Americans came out of the woodwork in numbers that so shocked the programmers they realized the segment was such a powerful activator they replayed it several times, not just in response to demand, but to boost ratings.

Whenever our leaders touch on the theft of Florida or Ohio in public appearances, whenever they tip toe anywhere near a call for impeachment, the audience bursts out in cheers and applause -- usually the loudest and longest of the event. Leaving that kind of energy untapped is political insanity.

There is enormous public support for impeachment. We can see it in the anger at Bush. We can see it in our Republican acquaintances who think Bush "needs a good spanking." We can see it in the polls (even with no leader out there making the case; even before Katrina, a majority of Americans said "If he lied, he should be impeached." Well, now a majority think he lied to coerce the nation into war.)

Until members of Congress who are sworn to defend the Constitution speak the truth, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and take up the fight for impeachment and removal countless Americans will continue to seethe in frustration and silence, believing they are alone in a world gone mad.

As long as members of Congress fail to give our outrage a voice they can continue to believe the opposite of reality, that Americans prefer to trade away the Constitution to avoid the "negativity" of impeachment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2426304">Original Post

[omega minimo]

53. the answer to that is important

"If they thought more of us ought to be pissed, why are they beating the "shouldn't impeach" drum to hard and fast?"









"You think they are ACTUALLY wondering??"

Yes, I heard Rep. Maxine Waters say so last April

[pat_k]

55. She should be talking to Nancy, not blaming us.

[omega minimo]

56. she wasn't "blaming" us

[pat_k]

59. when she asks, "why aren't more people demanding impeachment?, she

. . .need look no further then the caucus leadership.

Maxiine is one of the handful not betraying her oath -- unless she's on board with Pelosi's pledge too these days.

But the rest of them are. What is their rationalization for betraying their oath? I've lost track. Because there aren't enough angry people out here? And because their aren't enough angry people out here, they have to be complicit with criminals? That their complicity and dereliction of duty is our fault?

Are they really such wimps that they refuse to "lead" until they already have a following?

[omega minimo]

63. We're wimps too

[pat_k]

70. Who?

I haven't talked to a soul about this who doesn't want to see them removed. Republican OR Democratic.

Sure, most say "I want him gone, but. . .<propaganda>"

But that doesn't make them wimps.

When the bad guys and the good guys are all on the same page ("Trying to impeach would be terrribbble!") it is incredible that only 44% of the nation says "shouldn't impeach" (and we know at least half of them are in the "I want him gone, but. . ." camp, and will jump on impeachment in a flash).

Right now, countless are trapped in silenced, believing the world has gone mad.

Make no mistake. If our leaders start speaking up, they will be joined by a roar from the public.

[omega minimo]

75. Wimpy public

:hi:

"Make no mistake. If our leaders start speaking up, they will be joined by a roar from the public."


The comment from Cong. Waters was on the 5 member panel discussion, chaired by Mike Malloy, CA Impeachment Forum, CA Progressive Dem Caucus, April 2006 at the Dem Convention.

I don't disagree with you. However, as you know, citizenship requires responsibility. That's all. :patriot:

[pat_k]

76. Of course. . .

Which is why we develop resources for citizen-lobbyists who will have face-to-face meetings (most likely with staff members) to convey their concerns and those of millions of others.

Email, calls, FAXs can demonstrate numbers, but we have found that there is no sufficient substitute for in-person dialog, which allows you to directly contradict the many rationalizations and excuses given for inaction, on this and other similar matters (e.g., Alito, January 6th).

thedeanpeople.com

[omega minimo]

78. double plus good

:thumbsup:

[pat_k]

81. Dialog here on DU. . .

. . .is a central part of pulling together good arguments for "them" :-)

Back and forth exchange is always much appreciated!

[Solly Mack]

48. Oh I think people should just go ahead and prepare their excuses and

rationalizations why Bush Inc had to go free for the "good of the country"
You know, learn to choke it down now to save yourself the time later.

Learn to spin how charging Bush for his crimes would harm the country...and how the Bush Regime is different from those "other" criminals( you know, brown people, black people and poor people) who are actually charged and jailed when they commit crimes that don't rise to the level of crimes the Bush Regime have committed

Get those self-nurturing (albeit delusional), allow you to sleep at night, talking points ready!!!!




(if you have to ask...)

[pat_k]

49. What's kidda great about all those rationalizations is that. . .

. . .the same ones are invoked whenever principle demands action, or whenever they must choose between a difficult or easy stance.

Since they are always the same, when you clobber them in one situation, they are far easier to clobber in the next, and the next. . .until finally, a bit of reality prevails.

And that is why it is ALWAYS worthwhile to lobby our "leaders" whatever we think our chances are. Every time we confront them, and challenge their rationalizations, we are chip, chip, chipping away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484155&mesg_id=2485064

[Solly Mack]

50. I knew you wouldn't have to ask :)

[AzDar]

54. A fine agenda. n/t

[pat_k]

61. And she plans to

. . .accomplish it with her shiny new non-veto-proof majority, under "rule by signing statement," how?

Renovating a house that has been knocked off it's foundation is a doomed effort. You won't get to live their long before it all starts falling down around you.

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!

[warrens]

58. Cut off every scumbag on K Street

Send em a little letter telling them that no Dem will even speak to them, so go get an honest job. Hundreds of miles from DC. And don't come back.

[rman]

64. True enough; impeachment is not a goal in itself

The goal is to get them behind bars and to clean House.

I especially like the part about investigating the hell out of them all.
It must be non-partisan though - Dems should not be excluded simply for being Dem.

[pat_k]

71. Remove to rescue the Constitution -- then prosecute and punish. . .

First order of business it to "take the keys" and rescue the Constitution from further damage by these "drunks" (drunk with power).

Then there is plenty of time to investigate and prosecute.

First things first.

When the police see a drunk driver, they doesn't much care about prosecuting. First order of business is to get the out-of-control driver the heck off the road.

For a member of Congress, the FIRST duty -- the one nearly all of them are derelict in -- is to notify the public that the Constitution is under attack and that defensive action is required to rescue it.

This is OUR country.

The process doesn't start with Articles of Impeachment. It doesn't end with judgment in the Senate.

The process starts in the court of public opinion and ends with removal from office by resignation or by force through impeachment. Between those two points things can play out in an infinite number of ways. There is no way of knowing.

The cool thing about duty is that you just do it, come what may.

"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"

"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall"

[lonestarnot]

74. THE IMPEACH SIGN IS STILL UP! WOOOHOOO!

3 DAYS AND COUNTING! IN A BUSY PART OF TOWN!

[Initech]

77. Yeah, screw impeachment. That's the easy way out.

Personally, I think I'd rather have a Congress that will make the next two years VERY difficult for Bush than one whose first line of duty would be to impeach.

[Initech]

79. OOH - just thought of this one - NEW AMENDMENT:

Clarify the god damn rules and regulations for starting a war. Define CLEARLY what it means to declare war on another country, that there must be clear, concise, and legitimate evidence for starting a war, and that any sitting president who violates these new rules will BE IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT TO ARREST AND IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WILL BEGIN. This amendment would also define clearly what presidential abuses of power are.

This must be a TOP PRIORITY for the new Congress!

[Oldenuff]

80. Give me my America back you Repuke sonsabitc****

Whatever avenue is necessary to hold those who have damaged our country accountable.
<<
- reverse the Bankruptcy bill
- reverse the Credit Card scam bill
- stop the Illegal WireTapping
- reverse the 2006 Enabling Act
- goddam rebuild New Orleans
- end the no-bid give away to Helliburton
- end the tax breaks to the Oil Companies
- start several 'manhattan projects' for Solar, Wind, other energy sources
- roll back Dumya's tax breaks to the millionaires
- and I'm sure we can think of a dozen more important things...>>>

No doubt many here can come up with some other reversals of the damage that this aministration has wrought upon us,but a couple that really STAND OUT to me are:

The Patriot Act.

Warrantless wiretapping and spying on private ctizens.

The National ID act,or whatever they are calling it today.

I'm sick and doggone tired of having my liberties stripped away one by one.Where the hell has supporting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights gone?

Investigate the overbilling Halliburton is acused of,and sue for the return of our money,and then throw them some jail time.