Let me see if I've got this right.

[Pacifist Patriot]

We shouldn't impeach (with all the evidence gathering and witness testimony that involves) because:

1. We need to move forward instead of dwelling on the past.

2. An impeachment would monopolize the Congress and prevent them from solving our problems. Fix things first, than worry about impeachment.

3. It'll look like paybacks and damage political credibility.

4. President Bush is effectively hamstrung as a lame duck so why bother with the expense and notoriety of an impeachment.

5. He won't be convicted anyway so don't waste our time and money.

I absolutely could not disagree more. I think I understand why people would hold these opinions, but I cannot accept them as valid.

1. How are we supposed to move forward if we do not have the pertinent information regarding the past? It's naive to think you can progress if you do not have the correct knowledge about the source of issues and potential obstacles.

2. Related to number one, impeachment IS part of fixing our problems. Many of our problems stem from criminal behavior and rapidly growing disdain for the U.S. Constitution. We cannot possibly create the necessary environment for fixing our problems if we do not create a political environment in which every participant in government is held to the same standard--the rule of law.

3. I disagree that Americans would regard the Democrats with an overwhelming degree of disdain for an attempt to pursue the truth. Polls already indicate the majority of Americans are in favor of impeachment if Bush lied to invade Iraq. To ignore criminal behavior to somehow perpetuate our own party's power makes us no better than they are. I would hope we have more dignity and integrity than that. It's reprehensible to base our decisions on political party positioning rather than moral obligation and ethical responsibility. That would be, um, oh so Republican of us.

4. This isn't about reigning in a lousy president. It's about holding an elected official accountable for his actions in accordance with the law, not just by means of the voting booth. This isn't about stopping one man, it's about trickle down ethics. Do we really want to set a precedent of allowing some people to function outside the law?

5. The outcome is less important than the process. The pursuit of justice is never a waste of time, money and political capital. I disagree that Bush would "get off," but I can certainly understand the concern. After all, he does come across as thickly shielded from reality thanks to Rove, Cheney, et. al. But these men are neither as accomplished nor as intelligent as people seem to think. You can only shield a president from accountability up to a point.

I want to show the United States and the global community that our "democratic experiment" expressed by the U.S. Constitution has not resulted in abject failure after a mere 219 years. I only wish we could do more to atone for the Bush regime.

[dysfunctional press]

1. an impeachment is NOT going to happen.

get over it.

the sooner, the better- you're just going to be disappointed if you think that one will actually occur.

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. In your dreams.

[dysfunctional press]

8. the people that are dreaming-

are the ones who think that the retard will ever be impeached.

oh well- let them taste the disappointment.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. That's not the point.

I don't know what I expect. I just know what I think SHOULD happen.

[dysfunctional press]

10. lots of things SHOULD happen...

but most of them never do.

and you can add an impeachment of * to that list.

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. But my post isn't predicting what will happen...

only stating what I believe should happen. I can't speculate on what will or will not actually transpire.

[dysfunctional press]

13. i can-

and an impeachment is NOT going to happen- take it to the bank.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. How can you be so sure of that? Oh and I have been disappointed so much

these past six years, one more disappointment won't kill me. Pardon me then if I don't take your advice too, get over it.

[dysfunctional press]

12. common sense and experience.

i'm just old enough to know better, i guess...

[lapfog_1]

42. I'm f'ing old enough to know better

Nixon would have been impeached and convicted, which is the only reason he resigned.

And the same conditions applied then as now...

If the repukes had closed ranks, he would have never been convicted in the Senate. But even they looked at the evidence and met with Nixon and convinced him to resign.

Nixon was a crook. Bush is worse, he is a traitor.

Nixon committed crimes related to his re-election and his paranoia about what the Democrats were up to. Bush is a sociopath (he doesn't care about anything and he is sure that he is right and nobody else is... and he punishes anyone who doesn't agree with him plus he has broken laws and the constitution in an effort to create a unitary executive... aka dictatorship).

So we should hold hearings while all of this stuff is still fresh, and if the evidence is there (nominally in the form of testimony from aides that have been given immunity) and it's convincing, then we should move forward on impeachment.

There is another reason to impeach. It's the only way to stop the war in Iraq.

[dysfunctional press]

50. an impeachment won't end the war in iraq-

we broke it, we bought it. an immediate and total pull-out would be the worst thing we could do.

[lapfog_1]

55. Well we don't even have the option of just leaving

if Chimp/Darth are still in office.

So... if we can't leave because it will make things so much worse... what do we do?

The only way to "win" militarily is to draft 500,000 troops, pony up the money to supply them (victory gardens, carbon fiber drives), and really occupy Iraq. Then you cordon off section after section and confiscate all the weapons... think Germany in France. And even that won't work... but it would be better than now.

We can't just stay, holed up in the Green zone and our bases...

so what do we do?

[longship]

15. This is not a constructive response.

Please read mine, below.

[dysfunctional press]

37. mine is simple and to the point.

i don't need to be verbose to express what SHOULD be obvious to everyone.

[novalib]

48. OF COURSE HE WON'T BE IMPEACHED ----

Especially if THE PEOPLE DO NOT DEMAND IT!!

WE MUST DEMAND IT!!!!!

[dysfunctional press]

51. i don't want to demand it, and i won't.

i just want us to win in '08.
impeaching this guy won't help us there.

[bullimiami]

2. after the evidence comes out his own party will tell him he is done.

just like with nixon. they will keep up the charade for awhile then they will concede.

[Greyhound]

20. I think you've predicted the future of this quite accurately.

There will be investigations and those will produce a mountain of evidence that makes the administrations criminality undeniable, the re:puke: leadership will have a little talk with him and they and his father will convince him that the only way to avoid prison is to resign.

Years later, the Democrats will turn Iraq around and then the corporate spin machine will credit him with having a great vision and rehabilitate his image.

[lapfog_1]

43. Don't bet on it.

Bush has no concept of decency... and he has always gotten his way. His arrogance knows no bounds.

[Greyhound]

47. No doubt, he is utterly unconscionable. I just think that those he cannot ignore will,

for the good of the party, convince him.

OTOH, he may be as stupid and stubborn as you say, in which case, they will probably assassinate him.

[lapfog_1]

44. Don't bet on it.

Bush has no concept of decency... and he has always gotten his way. His arrogance knows no bounds.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

53. Thank you. I too think his own party will push * out.

I mean, I for one want to know who ATC notified when the 2 aircraft out of Boston changed their flight plan (too the WTC) 25 minutes before the 1st tower was hit.

And there are other secrets that will be uncovered. The sh*t has not even reached the fan, yet.

[bigtree]

3. I think you make a good case here

well constructed argument

[Virginia Dare]

6. Oversight and investigation....

that is the first order of business. The next order of business is to come up with a true, workable plan for Iraq, which will minimize future casualties on both sides. That is what the American people expect.

Let Bush twist in the wind. His true approval ratings (not the fantasyland MSM produced ones) will probably close to single digits by time he's out of there, giving the Democrats an even greater chance of snagging the White House. Think about it, where is the GOP going to get a Presidential candidate who hasn't at some point along the line been caught kissing chimp/cheney ass?

I say go after Cheney, Rummy, and Rove, and let Bush try and hold onto his sanity for the next two years. Give him the bums rush and let him take his rightful place in history as the worst President ever.

[uppityperson]

9. Need to investigate and see where it goes. eom

[Brazenly Liberal]

17. Exactly! Let impeachment happen organically.

Do the work first. Conduct investigations. Gather the evidence. If impeachment is the no-brainer many people think it is, the evidence will lead inexorably and irresistibly down that path. There will be grassroots demand for it so loud, it will have to happen. Then, instead of sounding like we're out for vengeance, we'll sound like reasonable people righting a wrong and Americans who say they are sick of partisanship will be aboard instead of in the mood to vote us right back out in 2008.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. I may advocate impeachment, but that doesn't mean...

I'd like any steps in the process skipped.

[Brazenly Liberal]

31. You're being smart about it.

I wasn't actually addressing you in particular, but rather those who want to see articles of impeachment drawn up tomorrow.

TahitiNut posted articles about polls showing the majority of Americans favor impeachment - or considering impeachment - if it can be shown Bush illegally wiretapped or deliberately lied us into Iraq:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2666087

The tricky bit is "if it can be shown......" In other words, all those facts that we know, but that have been 404 in the MSM need to become common knowledge first. Ask the next 12 people you see on the street what they think of the Downing Street Memo and if one of them can articulate a cogent, informed opinion, I'll be amazed. That's where the hearings come in. Let the subpoenas fly! Let the truth come out! Lay the groundwork and then - by popular demand - run his ass out of office.

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. I think that is part of the confusion.

Many of us have already seen compelling evidence of wrong-doing because we're paying attention. It's a time lag issue of bringing the wider public up to speed.

[Brazenly Liberal]

39. Exactly!

Over the years, I've worked with a number of "issues" groups and invariably a major stumbling block is getting them to see that what they know does NOT = what the general public knows. The first task is always educating the public. Americans are funny critters. We can go blithely on our way, content to be clueless about any number of travesties of justice playing out around us, but stick one in our faces and force us to look at it and we want justice and we want it now.

We have a higher bar to meet than the Republicans had when they impeached Clinton just because they impeached Clinton. It left the nation with a case of impeachment fatigue and the fact that it came to naught (YAY!) and still cost a freaking fortune left a sour taste. Whether we like it or not, the fact is we have to make a more compelling case than the GOP had to make because of that experience.

And there is absolutely no doubt that it is imperative that impeachment have widespread public support. As anyone who has ever raised kids or housebroken a puppy knows, it takes a lot longer to clean up a mess than it takes to make one. If we really want to clean up the godawful mess made by the Bush regime, we need time to do it. We owe it to ourselves and to our nation to still be in power and cleaning it up in 2009.

[earth mom]

14. You're absolutely right.

But some people around here are either not here for the right reasons or care more about looking good than about doing the right thing or doing what must be done to keep this a democracy and preserve the constitution. What better way to put those who represent "the people" on notice to do their damn jobs or else?!

I question the true motives of anyone who thinks otherwise.

[Imperialism Inc.]

16. So you are saying that 81% of the people here are trolls?

DU Impeachment Poll

[readmoreoften]

21. What are you talking about? Only 4% of DUers are against impeachment.

And those folks are probably trolls. The majority don't care WHEN impeachment happens so long as we are on the road towards it, if it possible. I voted as one of the 81% and I am absolutely 100% for impeachment-- as well as a criminal trial if possible.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. Perhaps a misunderstanding and belief that...

investigation is not part of the impeachment process? *shrug*

[Imperialism Inc.]

27. Then what is Golden Rule talking about? The 4%?

[readmoreoften]

34. Yes, all it takes it for 4% to machine gun post ridiculous nonsense

and then disappear into the ether until they want to make their next point. This is a website with almost 100,000 members. There are absolutely paid shills that come here to disrupt for various interests.

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. Why do so many people not seem to understand that impeachment...

includes open and transparent investigation?

Impeachment isn't just the trial, it's a process.

[bleedingheart]

19. If People are to Ever Respect the Government, We Must Impeach

...it is about


ACCOUNTABILITY


When a President of the United States of America, lies to get us into a war and abuses the powers he was granted and even usurps more power for himself....WE MUST IMPEACH.

If we do not impeach him, then it shows our disrespect for our own Constitution.

[longship]

22. Concerning impeachment.

The Nixon impeachment process took 20 months and it only got to the article adoption in the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee did not start impeachment inquiries until one full year into the investigation and only when the "Saturday Night Massacre" turned public opinion against Nixon. In itself, that turn of opinion took two months to solidify.

We have a very important Presidential election season beginning in a short 13-14 months.

Does anybody here think impeachment could be accomplished in that time frame?

Does anybody here think that we could get public support for impeachment in time to complete the process in 2007?

Does anybody think that impeachment would not be the number one issue in the 2008 election?

Does anybody think that impeachment and removal is possible without overwhelming public support?

Does anybody think that a failed impeachment wouldn't result in Democrats taking a huge hit in 2008?

I firmly believe that no administration deserves impeachment more than this one. However, I cannot see it happening. There just isn't enough time and we have so many other things which we can do to put an end to these assholes.

For one, I think I would love to see the ChimpCo crowd frog-marched out of the White House one minute after Al Gore is sworn in as President in January, 2009. We don't need impeachment to do that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. Again, as stated above.

My post is not addressing either the likelihood of an impeachment or how it would play out. Just why I think it would be the right thing to do.

I'll be happy to answer your questions at a personal level.

Do you think impeachment could be accomplished in that time frame?

Highly unlikely. But that doesn't mean I don't think an election cycle should dictate whether our government fulfills it's constitutional responsibilities or not.

Do you think that we could get public support for impeachment in time to complete the process in 2007?

The public support for impeachment has already been measured. I'm not sure what that has to do with expediting the process for a 2007 completion.

Do you think that impeachment would not be the number one issue in the 2008 election?

If impeachment proceedings begin in 2007 than most likely it would be a very hot issue in the 2008 election. If we're still in Iraq, it'll have some competition for number one.

Do you think that impeachment and removal is possible without overwhelming public support?

Impeachment is certainly possible without overwhelming public support. A minority of Americans supported Clinton's impeachment. As for removal, that would be predicated on the outcome of the investigation and trial.

Do you think that a failed impeachment wouldn't result in Democrats taking a huge hit in 2008?

I believe you are asking if a failed impeachment would result in a huge hit. I honestly don't know. I suspect not, because the indications we already have of massive fraud and corruption within the Republican party are likely to result in bombshells regardless of whether Bush is convicted or not.

I firmly believe that no administration deserves impeachment more than this one. However, I cannot see it happening. There just isn't enough time and we have so many other things which we can do to put an end to these assholes.

I too don't think there is enough time before the 2008 election cycle, but that doesn't translate to me in believing that it wouldn't be the right thing to do. I have no idea what the politicians will ultimately decide. I only know what I believe to be the moral, ethical and legal decision should be.

[longship]

41. I agree with your conclusions.

But differ in your specific answers.

I think that no impeachment should happen without public approval. We saw what happened with the Clinton impeachment. We also saw with Watergate what can happen with public approval. Another poster has called impeachment an organic process. I must concur both with that metaphor, and with that assessment.

Furthermore, when a political entity walks down a path without public support, even though their principles and goals are entirely correct, their actions can only be political. For the past twelve years we've seen the wreckage of such politics. We've seen it in spades for the past six years. I would much prefer that Democrats not tread down that same path.

Although impeachment is entirely appropriate in this case, I cannot say that I want Dems to go down that road. I'll leave that entirely to the people and I will go with whatever they decide.

[Hubert Flottz]

40. It depends...

Bush got the case of Bush vs. Gore into the SCOTUS in DAYS!

[Imperialism Inc.]

24. I think you are misunderstanding what most people are saying.

I linked to a poll from GD in a post just above.
People are just saying don't make impeachment a primary goal. Do the oversight work. If that leads to enough wrongdoing and/or public support then impeachment can and should be back on the table. That is the way I read it anyway.

Surely the 2nd option in that poll contains both people who think that there will never be enough public support and people that think public support is irrelevant (only cause/evidence matters) but, the "way forward" seems pretty well agreed on. Do the oversight work first without an overarching goal (or at least not an announced one) of pursuing impeachment. The reasons why are many but mostly due to pragmatism. Wanting to get things accomplished and wanting to hold and improve the Dem majority.

[longship]

28. This is precisely the issue.

Good response.

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. No, not at all.

This is a response to several discussions I have had. I'm referring to those who want to drop the whole thing.

I think the "investigate first" v. "impeachment is imperative" is a blurred debate and one that has arisen from misunderstandings. Advocacy of impeachment does not mean expecting a trial before evidence has been gathered. Impeachment is a process, not a single event. Investigation can be done within the context of the impeachment process.

The Bush administration has already admitted to warrantless wiretapping. We clearly have found no WMD in Iraq, the primary reason given for the invasion. Absolutely there is more that must be uncovered, but both instances provide ample reason to initiate the impeachment process to find out exactly what else is out there, who knows what and when they knew it.

I don't see it as an either/or.

[Imperialism Inc.]

32. OK. Then I would just say that there really aren't that many people

to convince. I think we are almost all on the same page.

Let me ask you this though. Do you agree with Pelosi and Conyers in saying that impeachment is off the table?

[Pacifist Patriot]

38. No I do not agree. Impeachment should never be "off the table."

It's in our Constitution for a reason. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution should ever be dismissed as a possibility.

I certainly understand politically why Democrats in Congress might want to play it cagey and say, "we're not at that point..." But to completely dismiss a function in the Constitution is too reminiscent of the dismissiveness the Bush regime has displayed towards the Constitution. I cannot bring myself to believe they meant it literally.

[H2O Man]

25. Perhaps some believe

that we can best preserve the Constitution by putting it in a locked box in the attic of a museum. They are wrong. It's intended to be a living, breathing document that is part of our everyday life.

[Pacifist Patriot]

46. I will never understand that position. I guess it makes me an ideologue.

[Jcrowley]

30. Well stated

The point here is that our collective humanity, our national conscience, our individual sense of ourselves as citizens, demands that we declare criminals to be criminals, and that they be punished accordingly.

[Hamlette]

33. "if" Bush lied, can you point to some evidence that we can use to prove

he lied?

Remember, to prove someone lied, you must prove they knew what they were saying was untrue. He has had lawyers for the last 6 years and while they gave him horrid advice on many things, they were careful and so was he. Note he did not say "Niger sold uranium to Iraq." He said "BRITISH intelligence believes Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa." That statement is actually true. It was misleading but then you still have to prove BUSH knew it was misleading. If he's been living in the bubble many suspect he lives in, he could have believed it true. Was it negligent for him not to know. Duh. Is that a high crime and/or misdemeanor? Not even.

Also, be prepared. Some believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time ie, run the government and impeach. Problem is the media. If we start saying we want to impeach or even investigate to impeach, there will be no press on the other things we are doing so the full 2 years will look to America like it was all about impeachment. Sans Olbermann and Stewart, the media hate us.

And we don't have the votes to convict.

[Recursion]

45. ***IF*** the leopards change their spots for the next 2 years...

...then I am content to let history punish them.

That's just me, though.

[porphyrian]

49. Bookmark this thread. See what these people say a year from today.

I think people a) don't understand what impeachment is and b) are still in shock from the dramatic and sudden shift in power. Let it settle down a bit and let some of these investigations bring things to light. Impeachment is imperative.

[Pacifist Patriot]

52. Thank you. I think you might be right.

But of course, I would say that. ;)

[Nay]

54. I agree with you completely, Patriot, and for all the same reasons.

But we are in the minority here. If we don't impeach, we DO send the message to future Republicans that they can try to get away with pillage and lawlessness again and will most likely be able to get away with it.