Anybody pushing for impeachment is...

[survivor999]

and WHY?

[Fovea]

1. because pres. Pelosi has a good ring to it.

[William769]

2. IMPRACTICAL.

Would like to see investigations first. Even though you have a witch, you still need a witch hunt. :evilgrin:

[wtmusic]

5. No investigation needed

The president has confessed to breaking FISA laws but claimed he is exempt under the "unitary executive" theory.

The issues aren't evidentiary but legal, and his guilt should be determined at the hearings themselves.

[acmejack]

10. And when you have a dunking stool?

[AntiFascist]

13. To have good investigations you need a call for impeachment...

chicken and egg.

[elocs]

17. You can have oversight hearings and investigations without impeachment.

It has been done all the time, just not recently. Plus, they can be good investigations without a call for impeachment.

[elocs]

18. Oh, nicely put. I always thought it was putting the cart before the horse. n/t

[rosesaylavee]

3. An investigation will

reveal crimes have been committed. If we are to return to the rule of law, to reinstate the constitution and those pesky bill of rights... we need to follow through.

If we want to re-establish our credibility internationally, we can't let these criminals walk away. Over 600,000 people have died because of their actions.

[RC]

15. Turn them over to the World Court.

The investigations done correctly are going to take longer than two years anyway.
So much damage, where does one start.
Let's not get sidetracked here.
Impeaching bu$h is sidetracking away from the real criminals running the show. bu$h is not much more than a sock puppet. Investigate and run to ground the real criminals so this does not happen again.

[DaveJ]

4. This is one of those issue that I don't want to touch...

Sort of like euthanasia was about 12 years ago. I voted 'impractical' but now I'm wishing I could have changed it to other.

I think it's not just that he intentionally committed criminal acts, though, but also that he's a really really bad president.

[survivor999]

6. Bad in business, bad in politics.

Chimpy is just the prototype of the spoiled frat boy.

[11 Bravo]

7. A patriot?

You know, one of those naive fools who believes that the Constitution actually means what it says.

[lapfog_1]

8. Because it's the right thing to do.

forget the politics. We should not care so much about the future. It's not a vendetta.

But we get ahead of ourselves. first we need to investigate. Then, if there is on record evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, we should impeach. And convict if we can. Because it's the right thing to do.
It's also an obligation of every member of the House that swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution. Few here would say that our constitution has not been assaulted in recent years, and that other high crimes may have been committed by the Executive Branch, specifically by the Vice President and the President. So we need to investigate, and should the evidence lead to a conclusion that impeachment is warranted and can be proven... it must go forward.

[trotsky]

9. I believe that Bush deserves to be impeached, and is guilty.

However, I do not see it being practical at this point. Because remember folks, impeachment is just the first step. Repukes did that against Clinton - but they couldn't get the 2/3 majority of the Senate that is necessary to convict and remove from office. Do you really think we could convince Joe Lieberman and 16 more Republicans to vote for conviction?

Investigate first. Let the evidence be exposed to daylight. If it's bad enough (and we know it is), there will be such a demand for it, we'll have those 17 votes and more.

[survivor999]

11. No brainer.

[Individualist]

12. Justice and morality require it.

[bigwillq]

14. You have to start with investigations

and if the evidence and support is there, then you take the next step.

[RC]

16. The next step is the World Court.

[dicknbush]

20. Exactly correct

I agree Convict here first and then send him right over to the Hague put him in Milosovcis cell!

[elocs]

21. Reality is a harsh mistress.

You and I both know that will never happen. It makes for a good dream and fantasy, but it is not reality.

[dicknbush]

22. I can guraentee you that the day the initiated Clinton's Impeachemnt no one thought it would happen

Do you think they really thought they would get as far as they did? If you dont' try you will never know!

[dicknbush]

19. The Impeachment Debate is interesting but for me the best part of Impeachemnt is:

That it could be the begining of reconciliation with the population of Iraq. We are responsible for allowing this idiot to create mayhem and murder on the Iraqi people. Somehow we must begin to let the citizens of Iraq that we are sorry for allowing this to happen and the one very powerful way to do that woudl be to prosecute and convict those who are responsible for it. Just imaging the healing that this action may afford our country. I think that no action would speak more clearly to those who have been directly affected by this crime that the Untied States was allowed to visit on the Innocent civilians of Iraq. It would also be a wake up call to those who would be thining of using the same actions on another country. Another action would be to create a compensation Committe that would investigate each and every killing and compesate the families affected you could start by using the money that would be going to Bush in his retirement. That is about $600,000+ per year that we will have to be paying this idiot until the day he dies!

[AntiFascist]

23. Exactly, this point cannot be stressed enough!

Iraq has become a generator for terrorism because many now view the people of the United States as their enemy. If we make a very public statement, including indictment, that our president was wrong to take us to war then it would go a long way toward correcting our reputation, not only in Iraq, but around the world where we can begin again to forge the strong alliances that are really needed to guard against terrorism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. I'd like to vote for "helping the Republicans win in 2008".

Also "unrealistic" and probably, but not certainly, "self-righteous".

I have very little time for those who would rather *be* right than *do* good.

It may well be that George W. Bush has done things that mean that a valid legal case could be made for impeaching him.

There is no possibility whatsoever of impeaching him in the next two years. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. It would require the Republicans to break ranks and vote for it in droves, and that simply isn't going to happen.

A case could be made that the Democrats should begin impeachment procedings even so, because it's the Right Thing To Do.

However, trying to doing so would do a great deal of harm to America because it would prevent the Democrats from being able to pass as much legislation for the next two years, and hurt them massively in the 2008 elections.

The primary purpose of the law is to protect the innocent, not to punish the guilty, and as such impeachment procedings would be a very bad thing indeed.

[elocs]

25. Here is what John Dean has to say about impeachment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2707461

"John Dean On Impeachment: TruthDig Interview 9/12/06

http://www.truthdig.com/interview/print/20060912_john_d... /

He has some good points:

A prolific author, most recently of the New York Times bestsellers “Worse Than Watergate” and “Conservatives Without Conscience,” Dean discussed with Truthdig managing editor Blair Golson (via e-mail) his view that the Democrats should not initiate impeachment hearings unless they have strong reason to believe the Senate would then vote to remove Bush from office – or else risk the kind of “sham” proceedings that characterized the Clinton impeachment saga."

But then, what does John Dean know?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. ....As Guilty On Premise As The DSM Itself.

Those that want the outcome predetermined, i.e. impeachment, thereby causing the investigative and congressional process to be merely a show for the public, are theoretically guilty of the same violations of honor and integrity as the premise of the DSM. You don't start off with a call for impeachment and then follow with investigations. You investigate first, gather facts, subpoena persons of interest from both sides, do due diligence, see what's uncovered and only then does the concept of Impeachment become even up for discussion. To have the end game be the start of the game, with all other pieces being placed in a row with solid purpose, is the same deceitful and dishonorable type garbage we saw from them telling the public they wanted to give Iraq a chance, but already knew damn well the war was going ahead one way or the other.

Thorough and professional investigations first. Impeachment isn't even up for consideration until quite some time afterwards.

[AntiFascist]

28. There's nothing wrong with the people calling for impeachment...

as is the case with Cindy Sheehan's statement, then the Reps can all go Huh? Maybe we'd better investigate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. I Obviously Disagree.

I find it as an upfront declaration to be a bit irresponsible and reckless. Is just personal opinion though, and I understand that others have opinions on the matter that differ. But I do pretty solidly feel that calling for impeachment right off the bat is foolish, unrealistic, futile and damaging to our party.

[LittleClarkie]

27. Seems like a bit of a push poll. More negative than positive

I would just say that investigations come first.

[Old and In the Way]

29. I'm in no hurry. Let's let due process work.

Let's do the oversight. If warranted, lets look into the crimes. If crimes appear to be committed, lets get a Bill of Impeachment out of Judiciary. The last thing I'm concerned about is vote counting in this Congress. If the facts justify the Bill, let the Republicans explain why they wouldn't vote for impeachment to their constituents. They can read and understand the charges. They can reward or penalize their Senator as they see fit. For us not to demand justice and impeachment if the crimes warrant this action is to give future dictators a clear signal that you can ignore 9/11 type attack warnings, start wars on lies that kill 100's of thousands, let American cities drown, and bankrupt the Treasury....with no consequence. Hell of a precedent we'd be setting. We'd have gone from setting the bar on the ground (lying about consensual sex) to setting the bar so high that there is no working definition of impeachment.

History will remember Bush's crimes and incompetence, the question is how will they remember our reaction to it?

[Kelly Rupert]

30. EASILY CLASSIFIABLE INTO A CONVENIENT LABEL

[bigwillq]

31. Hi!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Kelly Rupert]

32. Hey there!

Thanks!

[alittlelark]

33. I had to vote 'other'.

Impeachment proceedings would be the likely outcome of investigations.... The investigations MUST occur prior to the impeachment. The horse must be in front of the cart. If they get enough evidence quickly they will be forced to start impeachment proceedings... That's why bush and cheney have already made it clear that they will fight subpoenas. They are trying to drag the process out as best they can.

[VeggieTart]

34. I'm afraid it's not practical

I would love nothing more than to see Bush investigated, impeached, removed from office, and punished. But the Dems should really focus on stopping the damage of the Rethugs and trying to turn the ship around (did I mix metaphors?). I do like the idea of turning him over to the World Court and letting them deal with his crimes against humanity. It lets the Dems off the hook for going after Bush and hopefully will ensure that he is brought to justice. I just hope turning over to the World Court is practical and the right thing to do in caess like this.

[Zhade]

35. Because it's justice? Because the Constitution REQUIRES it?

Because they understand what patriotism really means?