Shhh! Secret Meeting of Impeach-Right-This-Minute Club (NO StrategRists Aloud !!!)

[omega minimo]

Okay, everbody. Let’s synchronize our watches to IMPEACH O’CLOCK!

:kick: :bounce: :kick:


All right, we know everbody here has a since of humor cuz there IS NO “Impeach-Right-This-Minute Club”! Congress is not even is session, Silly! :eyes:

Yet there are people that think: because Laws have been broken by The Current Power That Be and because citizens and soldiers are dying 24/7/365X3+ because of a war that TCPTB lied, coerced and manipulated the public and Congress into supporting and because there have been multiple forums, studies, hearings, articles and State bills documenting the case for impeachment................ some folks think that’s worst than an Presidentiamable Oval Orifice quickie or two and are calling for another Impeachment (so soon?).

And there are those trapped in the Twilight Zone of Strategery and Spectator Politics who have fallen into pits of congealed goo from the keening jaws of Limbot, O’Lielly and Tony Max Headroom, Kermit the Gingrich, Luntz and Rove. They are trapped, immobilized, on their backs looking up, waiting for a magic number of VOTES to appear in the sky above their heads, before they can arise from the muck and move about freely again.

And there's too much confusion about Investigations and Impeachment or Investigations OR Impeachment or Nomination '08 or Impeachment or Do The Right Thing or Strategery......................................

So we in the Reality Based Community must guide them into the light, draw them up toward a gasbag-goo drying- and strategery-free breeze that will make them hungry for the Truth.

The truth is: deciding to base every political decision on hypothetical and hypocritical outcomes of ends-justify-the-means is the exact OPPOSITE of the Constitutionally encoded system that was bequeathed and entrusted to us as American Citizens.

Deal with it.

Honestly.

Metting adjourned.



http://www.ImpeachBush.TV

Argulets and Talking Points
These talking points argue that Bush has commited impeachable offenses.

Talking Point Rebuttals - Impeachable Offenses

1. When they say "Bush has commited no crimes."
2. When they say "Bush himself was misled by faulty intelligence on Iraq."
3. When they say "Bush was authorized by Congress to invade Iraq so they are equally guilty."
4. When they say "Iraq actually did have WMD. Several hundred shells were found."
5. When they say "Bush was justified in using illegal wiretaps to fight terrorism."
6. When they say that "Bush is opposed to torture and that Abu Ghraib was just some out of control soldiers."
7. When they say "The kidnapping and torture of prisoners is justified to fight evil enemies."

When they say "Bush has commited no crimes."

* A President does not have to commit an ordinary criminal offense in order to be impeached. Governing in a way that undermines the Constitution or harming America is sufficient. But...
* Bush has actually violated several US laws including:
* Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805, the FISA law regulating wiretaps.
* Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the Federal Torture Act
* Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States Congress about Iraq


* According to the US Constitution, international treaties are part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Bush has violated:
* the UN Charter and Nuremberg Charter by invading Iraq,
* the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners and holding them without access to counsel.


When they say "Bush himself was misled by faulty intelligence on Iraq."

* Bush asked the intelligence community for anything they could possibly provide that supported war with Iraq. Intelligence operatives reported that they knew any information that did not support Bush's agenda would be igniored.
* The July 2002 Downing Street Memo that detailed a meeting with Tony Blair, describes how Bush was intent on war with Iraq "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD " but "the case was thin" so " intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
* In March of 2002, Joseph Wilson reported that there was no evidence Niger sold uranium to Iraq. Bush was warned repeatedly by the CIA and foreign intelligence that the documents of sale were probably forged and unreliable. But Bush used the story in his January 2003 State of the Union speech to scare the public.
* In October of 2002, the DOE concluded that the infamous aluminum tubes were unsuitable for use in uranium gas centrifuges and were probably intended for use in conventional rockets. But in his January 2003 State of the Union speech Bush said "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
* Immediately after 9/11, Bush and Cheney started linking Iraq and 9/11 in so many speeches that a majority of Americans actually believed there was a connection despite a complete lack of evidence. Sadly 85% of US troops in Iraq still believe this is the reason they are there. Bush admitted that there was no connection in 2003 but continues to link them in his speeches.
* Bush setup a team in the Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans whose purpose was to distort intelligence to support justification for war.
* Bush set up WHIG, the White House Iraq Group, to mold public opinion on Iraq and to justify war.
* Senator John Rockefeller describes a Senate report saying that Bush misled Congress about Iraq.
* More details at http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html


When they say "Bush was authorized by Congress to invade Iraq so they are equally guilty."

* They are probably referring to HJR114. The only reason Congress signed it is because they had been fooled by Bush into thinking Iraq was an imminent threat and was harboring Al Qaeda. This is called "fraud in the inducement". So the authorization was invalid. Read more...
* HJR114 specifically stated that it did not "supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution." The War Powers Resolution requires that existing international treaties be observed but Bush violated the UN and Nuremberg Charters by invading Iraq. So Bush overstepped his authority.
* Bush was required by HJR114 to show that the threat could not be resolved by diplomacy. But diplomacy and the UN inspections were keeping Iraq safely under control. Bush misled Congress about the threat and, therefore, did not fulfill his commitments under HJR114, invalidating his authority.


When they say "Iraq did have WMD. Several hundred shells were found."

* They are probably referring to the 500 shells that were touted by Senator Rick Santorum as evidence of WMD. These were old degraded shells leftover from the war with Iran. Sarin and most other chemical weapons are highly reactive and, therefore, have a short shelf life. They were essentially useless as weapons.


When they say "Bush was justified in using illegal wiretaps to fight terrorism"

* Bush can immediately place a wiretap on anyone that he has a "reasonable suspicion" is connected with terrorism. He then has 72 hours to seek approval from the FISA court. For example, airplane bomber Dandeny Munoz-Mosquera was captured in 1991 by using an emergency wiretap that was legal under the 72 hour rule.
* The FISA court routinely approves warrants for suspected terrorists or al Qaeda members. They would have approved any legitimate for monitoring a suspected terrorist? Read more...
* Bush tries to justify their legality using very old court decisions. But the 1978 FISA law supersedes those decisions and make warrantless wiretaps illegal. There are no laws or resolutions that have overturned the FISA law.
* Bush claims that HJRes144, the resolution to defend against Iraq, places him above the law. But there is nothing in HJRes114 to suggest that.


When they say that Bush is opposed to torture and that Abu Ghraib was just some out of control soldiers, you can say:

* Bush worked with Alberto Gonzales to develop policies that allowed torture. Read more...
* Bush and Cheney fought hard against John McCain's attempts to pass anti-torture laws. When Bush signed the law he also issued a signing statement that gave him permission to torture.
* The soldiers at Abu Ghraib said they were instructed by military intelligence and officers to torture prisoners.
* The CIA has a system for transporting prisoners to foreign countries where they can be tortured. This could not be done without the highest level of authorization.


When they say the kidnapping and torture of prisoners is justified to fight evil enemies, you can say:

* We are only good guys if we act like good guys. If we kidnap and torture people then we become the kind of bad guys that we are supposedly fighting against.
* Torture is considered ineffective by professional interrogators. People will make up lies to stop being tortured.
* Torture is usually used for revenge or to intimidate and terrorize populations.
* If we kidnap and torture then more people will hate the USA, making us less secure.
* Kidnapping and torture are illegal under US and International Law.
* Many innocent people have been kidnapped and tortured since 9/11. Maher Arar, for example, simply worked with someone whose brother supported al Qaeda in 1997, long before 9/11. For that he spent a year in a small dark cell and was repeatedly beaten and tortured.
* Torture was not limited to the dramatic "ticking bomb" situation. Many thousands of prisoners were tortured. Remember the famous picture of the fellow with his arms spread and wires dangling from his body? He was arrested for carjacking, not terrorism.

Status of Impeachment in States

(click on state name for more details)
State Status
Alaska State Democratic party passes impeachment resolution NR7.
California
Paul Koretz introduces impeachment resolution AJR39 in CA legislature! Sebastopol passed 5/18/06. Impeachment forum held at Democratic Convention 4/29. Berkeley passes resolution 4/25/06. Fairfax 7/5/06. On November '06 ballot in SF and Berkeley.

Colorado State Democratic party adds impeachment to platform on 5/20/06.
Illinois Karen Yarbrough (D-Maywood) introduces HJR0125 in the state Assembly, Champaign/Urbana have ballot initiative for Nov 7th
Indiana Lake Station rejects impeachment on April 13th.
Maine Kennebec County Democratic Committee passed April 20, 2006.
Massachusetts Amherst passes resolution.
Michigan National Lawyers Guild having a teach-in June 28th
Minnesota ImpeachForPeach.org promoting Do It Yourself Impeachment
Montana Montanans for Impeachment leading the charge.
New Hampshire Hanover passes impeachment 111 to 42 on May 9th, 2006.
New Jersey North Jersey Impeach Group working on state legislation.
New Mexico State Democratic party adds impeachment to platform.
New York Plattsburgh endorses HRes635 for investigation and possible impeachment.
North Carolina Meeting planned for April 27th at Durham Main Library
Oregon Lots of activity in the Portland Area. State dems pass resolution in 2005.
Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo launches impeachment petition campaign drive.
Rhode Island US Senate candidate Carl Sheeler calls for state impeachment.
Texas Impeachment resolution almost passes at stave Dem convention.
Washington Olympia considering passing a resolution.
Wisconsin 2005 Democratic Party Convention passed a resolution.
Vermont Rep. Zuckerman introduces impeachment resolution in State House.
Several cities and towns have also passed.



Impeachment Talking Points - November 12, 2006 – www.afterdowningstreet.org

The evidence of impeachable offenses by Bush and Cheney is already public knowledge. There is no question that impeachment is needed. The question is why it hasn't happened yet. Investigations will reveal more details and move the process forward, but the outcome is clear from the start. In fact, those who oppose impeachment very rarely claim that there is not sufficient evidence. Rather, they base their opposition on political or strategic concerns, getting their priorities out of order. Nothing is more important than restoring the rule of law and a constitutional system of government in which Congress can restrain abuses by the executive. If we do not impeach in this case, we will effectively remove impeachment from the Constitution and establish for future presidents the right to ignore the law.

Ten impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney are:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using signing statements to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

While impeachment is a very serious step that should not have been trivialized the way it was during the last presidential administration, it is also an indispensable part of a system of checks and balances that sustains our democracy. When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law. This is not a question of supporting one party over another, but of upholding the rule of law over both of them.

The new Democratic majority in the House is helpful, but haven't Pelosi, Emanuel, and Conyers taken impeachment "off the table"? They have no power to do so. The American people have the power to persuade both the House and the Senate to take up investigations that will lead to impeachment. A majority of Americans support this. We have a duty to make the strength of our support known. See these polls: www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

But won't that hurt the Democrats politically in 2008? That worry should be lower on our list. What good is getting elected in 2008 if we still have a dictator? What good was getting elected in 2006 if all you do is hide until 2008? But if you must base everything on elections, impeachment is helpful, not harmful. Failing to impeach Reagan for Iran-Contra led to Democratic losses, not gains. Through history, parties that have pushed for impeachment have gained at the polls, not lost.

But don't the Democrats have a duty to work cooperatively with the Republicans, pass legislation, and advance a positive future-looking agenda? Not according to American voters who elected many new Democrats but not a single new Republican, who support investigations and impeachment, and who care about the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights as much as they do about health care, schools, stem cells, or the minimum wage. Passing legislation that will be either vetoed or reversed by signing statements may make good political theater, but will not solve the current crisis.

But won't impeaching Bush give us Cheney? No. Impeachment and removal from office are two steps. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Investigating Bush or Cheney will incriminate the other. Both will face criminal indictments. Cheney runs things now, and having him as the most unpopular president in history would be a coup for the Democrats. But whoever is president after Bush, whether it's Cheney, another Republican, or Pelosi, he or she will know that the American people can hold them accountable through impeachment. The next election is the time to pick a president. Impeachment and removal from office are only tools for dealing with officials who abuse power, not for selecting their replacements.

But why impeach in the House if removal from office by the Senate requires an unlikely two-thirds vote? The investigations in the House will expose crimes to the light of day and the glow of televisions. Impeachment itself and the trial that follows, even if resulting in acquittal, will provide some measure of accountability. Criminal and civil proceedings will almost certainly follow. If the House votes to impeach, it is very likely that many Republicans will vote with the Democrats. They will understand the 2006 election results as requiring it if they are to keep their seats in 2008. If at least 16 Republican Senators (plus Lieberman and other Democrats in Name Only) see the same writing on the wall, they will either vote to convict or advise Bush to resign before they have to.

How can Bush and Cheney be charged with crimes after being tried in the Senate? Criminal proceedings, domestic or international, are completely separate from the impeachment process, which is political, not legal. The fact that Clinton had violated the law by lying under oath was seen as central to his impeachment only because he was not being charged with anything remotely approaching an impeachable offense. The public came away imagining falsely that illegal activity was required for impeachment. The impeachment proceedings against Nixon focused on impeachable offenses, which included lying to the public (not a crime) but intentionally omitted tax fraud (a crime, but not a serious abuse of presidential power). An impeachable offense is a threat to our system of government, legal or otherwise. Lying to the citizens of a democracy is a threat to that system of government. Legalizing your crimes through legislation like the Military Commissions Act does not make them any less impeachable offenses. Bush has lied to Congress about the reasons for the war in formal written statements (see his letter and report on March 19, 2003) as well as orally. These actions are felonies. Lying under oath is not the only crime on the books. Bush and Cheney have lied to the public on the same topic. That may not be a crime, but it is the highest possible high crime or misdemeanor, the clearest conceivable impeachable offense.

If investigations will get us to impeachment, then why not just push for investigations and keep quiet about impeachment so as not to upset people? Because we will then allow the media and Members of Congress to believe that the public does not want impeachment. For activists to be out ahead of Congress Members actually gives those Members the space they need to have positions that are seen as moderate and respectable. Those on the right understand this and are always glad to have organizations further out to the right than themselves. We on the left can learn this from those on the right who have joined and are joining the impeachment movement. If we back off impeachment, Congress will find a way to avoid it. Our inside-outside strategy is to push Congress Members for investigations while publicly creating an uproar for impeachment.



Democracy Now! | Worse Than Watergate: Former Nixon Counsel John ...
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think George Bush could be impeached? JOHN DEAN: It's a political process. What could happen -- one of the reasons that I wrote this ...
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/06/1354218 - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

AlterNet: The Case for Impeachment
www.alternet.org/story/16142/ - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

John Dean Talks to BuzzFlash.com About George W. Bush, Watergate ...
John Dean is someone who knows about the impeachment process, so when he recently wrote an article reflecting on George W. Bush and impeachment, ...
www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/17_dean.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon
After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with ... John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president. ...
writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction
By JOHN W. DEAN ----. Friday, Jun. 06, 2003. President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution ...
writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from writ.news.findlaw.com >

Ex-Nixon Aide John Dean Tells Bill Moyers that Bush Should Be ...
Ex-Nixon Aide John Dean Tells Bill Moyers that Bush Should Be Impeached. Tonight on NOW with Bill Moyers , former counsel to President Nixon John Dean tells ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-16.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

The Raw Story | Testimony of John Dean on censure
Testimony of John W. Dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding ... in the transcript prepared by Thomas R Lee of a 1999 panel on impeachment, ...
www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Testimony_ of_John_Dean_on_censure_0331.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

An Interview with John Dean | The Progressive
Here is an edited transcript of an interview with John Dean of Watergate fame. ... Dean: There’s a political reality about impeachment. ...
www.progressive.org/mag_wx052006 - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Truthdig - Interviews - John Dean on the Impeachment of the President
2006/09/12 - John Dean, the man who famously blew the whistle on the Nixon White House during the Watergate hearings, gives a primer on the discussion he ...
www.truthdig.com/interview/item/ 20060912_john_dean_impeachment_president/ - 59k - Cached - Similar pages

Impeachment - History
The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, ... Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on Aug. ...
www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

Impeach Nixon!
Richard Nixon Watergate Hotel, Washington DC Nixon Announces His Resignation Nixon Leaves ... http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeach-nixon.shtml (14130) ...
www.watergate.info/impeachment/impeach-nixon.shtml - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

The Impeach Richard Nixon Flyers
The Impeach Richard Nixon Flyers - 1976 to 1977. The Impeach Richard Nixon Flyers played softball in Toronto and lived to see RMN dead, if not impeached. ...
homepage.mac.com/patrickwlee/Flyers/index.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Richard Nixon - Nostalgia Central
Unless you were actually there, it's hard to imagine just how utterly loathed and reviled Richard Nixon was in the America of 1974. "Impeach Nixon" bumper ...
www.nostalgiacentral.com/pop/nixon.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

UofL - We The People to Impeach Nixon organization records
Description : This group was a local chapter of a political group We The People to Impeach Nixon seeking the impeachment of U.S. President Richard M. Nixon ...
special.library.louisville.edu/ display-collection.asp?ID=864 - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

1999-2000 Impeach Nixon
1999-2000 Impeach Nixon ...
lenin.dabney.caltech.edu/ history/1999-2000_Impeach_Nixon/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

WashingtonPost.com: Judiciary Committee Approves Article to ...
Judiciary Committee Approves Article to Impeach President Nixon, 27 to 11 6 Republicans Join Democrats to Pass Obstruction Charge ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/ longterm/watergate/articles/072874-1.htm - Similar pages

Judiciary Committee Approves Article to Impeach President Nixon ...
The House Judiciary Committee took the momentous step last night of recommending that the president of the United States be impeached and removed from ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601012.html - Similar pages

On Constitution Day - Talk Of Impeachment And Rumors Of War
Holtzmen observed that when Nixon was ordered by the Supreme Court to produce the tape recordings that the government had learned had been made in the Oval ...
www.rense.com/general73/constt.htm - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

Impeach Nixon Bush Button : politics : CafePress.com
Impeach Nixon Bush Button. Visit this member's shop: Burn Bush 2004. From the Designer “Impeach Nixon...I mean, Bush.” Product Details Express yourself! ...
www.cafepress.com/.../-/pv_design_prod/pg_5/ p_storeid.47116088/pNo_47116088/id_11040481/opt_/fpt_/c_360/ - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

IMPEACH REAGAN!!!!!
Who cares? 15%. Of course. He never existed to begin with, and is part of a sinister government plot. 42%. Who? 11%. Votes: 26. IMPEACH REAGAN!!!!! Author: ...
www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.6.23.15237.7247.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

give impeachment a chance
Henry Gonzalez (D-TX) offered a bill to impeach Reagan for violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Not a single member of Congress ...
www.oilempire.us/impeach.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages


Institute for Public Accuracy
But no one really made an effort to impeach Reagan over that -- though documents show that Reagan and his people were concerned about impeachment." ...
www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/Sept98/091798b.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

So You Think You Want to Impeach?
Accordingly, Nichols celebrates the quixotic impeachment quests of Democratic Rep. Henry B. Gonzales, who sought to impeach Reagan over the invasion of ...
www.motherjones.com/arts/books/ 2006/11/you_think_you_want_to_impeach.html - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

Media Reality Check -- 12/17/1998 -- Will Liberals Waive Their War ...
'Why don't we impeach Reagan for incompetence,' Conyers said, ... Impeachment is the only way to stop Ronald Reagan's 'illegal war' against Nicaragua." ...
www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/1998/fax[phone].asp - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

Bozell's News Column -- 12/17/1998 -- Will Editorialists Eat Their ...
Fast forward to August 4, 1987, when in the first of many columns over 10 years attacking Congress for failing to impeach Reagan over Iran-Contra, ...
www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/ newscolumn/1998/col19981217.asp - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

Pondering impeachment | The Daily Gotham
Conversely, it's worth pointing out that the failure to impeach Reagan over Iran-Contra gave Reaganism a new lease on life; and look where that brought us. ...
dailygotham.com/blog/bouldin/pondering_impeachment - 56k - Cached - Similar pages

ImpeachBush / VoteToImpeach:
Please help support the impeachment campaign's work and help place the new Impeach Bush ad in additional major newspapers and other mass media. ...
www.impeachbush.org/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Impeach Bush
Information, editorials and strategies for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Also includes general critiques of Bush policy.
www.impeachbush.tv/ - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

Impeach Bush Coalition
Impeach Bush! A United Coalition of Bloggers for the Impeachment of George W. Bush. Updated Daily. Join Today!
impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com/ - 130k - Dec 10, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
Features more than 200 excerpts about the historic proceedings from Harper's Weekly, the leading weekly newspaper of the era.
www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/ - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

Impeach Bush: The Four Reasons for Responsible Citizenship
Impeach Bush. Impeach Bush, Cheney, Runsfeld et. al., Impeaching George W. Bush: A clearinghouse of resources for everything that's going on in the US: US ...
www.thefourreasons.org/ - 227k - Cached - Similar pages

Impeach Bush
Exposing the lies and impeachable offenses of George W. Bush.
zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/ - 81k - Cached - Similar pages

ImpeachPAC | Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney
Aims to elect a Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney, if there is proof they lied to send the US into Iraq and wiretap US citizens without a court order.
www.impeachpac.org/ - 44k - Dec 10, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

Impeach Bush: Do-It-Yourself
Impeach Bush yourself! This is much more than just a petition.There's a little known and rarely used clause of the in the rules for the House of ...
impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

Impeach Bush, City and State Referendums
State initiated Impeachment of George Bush using Section 603 of Jefferson Manual.
www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/bystate.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

AfterDowningStreet.org | Impeach Bush and Cheney Now!
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the ... Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. ...
www.afterdowningstreet.org/ - 58k - Dec 10, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

MichaelMoore.com : Be It Resolved: You Can Impeach the President
Be It Resolved: You Can Impeach the President. Official State Impeachment Text ... Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, by such conduct, ...
www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=622 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

C2ore » News & Features: Latest Political and Economic News ...
'Impeach Him,' reads the cover of this month's Harper's Magazine. ... In addition, as Bob Geiger notes, Bush's state-by-state popularity is lower than even ...
www.c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=983 - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

ImpeachBush / VoteToImpeach:
Please help support the impeachment campaign's work and help place the new Impeach Bush ad in additional major newspapers and other mass media. ...
www.impeachbush.org/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

AlterNet: Impeaching Bush, State by State
In addition, as Bob Geiger notes, Bush's state-by-state popularity is lower ... Impeachment is a start, but if we impeach Bush, an even greater villain of ...
www.alternet.org/story/35467/ - 166k - Cached - Similar pages

[FogerRox]

1. YIppe Kia Yeah Mo FO

KnR and Bookmarked

[lonestarnot]

2. Damn you're good!

[omega minimo]

8. ;)

thot some info mite help :toast:

[lonestarnot]

59. Kiahk!

[oasis]

3. Facts are a DUer's best friend. Thanx for the info. Big k&r.

[stillcool]

4. OMG......

I think I love you!!! Really, really nice work. I know it's a secret...but, are you doing more harm than good?
:rofl:

[omega minimo]

28. Nice sigline

Wot's the difference b/w Watergate and now?

When the public was made aware of the criminal actions of the president, they didn't try to rationalize, strategerialize it away..................


Harm? Ruffled feathers? Aching braincells? :yoiks:


:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. This OP Would've Been Far Better Had It Not Contained Such Provocation And Invitation For A Flamewar

I wish there could be a thread that was serious about discussing the impeachment issue that started off with civil and deep intent for discussion that was able to maintain its way throughout the thread. I think there are many important points on all sides of the issue to be made if only they could be discussed in a civil manner.

But threads that start off with the intention of provoking those with alternate opinions doesn't really do the issue any justice whatsoever, and definitely don't foster an atmosphere conducive to discussing this issue seriously.

In this thread alone those who disagree with an idealistic 'right now' strategy, or have a strategy of their own liking, are accused of being under the spell of Limbaugh, O'reilly, Rove etc. Right off the bat their positions are twisted and mocked, as if they were completely incapable of thought and are just waiting for 'magic'. They are then mocked even further by being accused of not being in reality, or in essence being called delusional.

Like I said, I think there are some very important issues and discussions that should be taking place about impeachment. I think some good civil discussions in which people can point out their points of view without being attacked is essential on this very important issue. But what DU has more than enough of already are threads started just for sake of stoking the animosity between the sides of the issue. We need more civility on this issue, not more flamewars.

I wish the provocations of mockery, name calling and condescension towards those who are not in 100% agreement were not present in this thread. But I guess I'll have to wait for the next thread on the topic in hopes that maybe that one can portray a truly sincere spirit of civility towards important discussion of this issue.

[omega minimo]

11. I Just Find It A Sign Of Blah And Blahmacy When One Blahs Something Without Any Blah Blah

It portrays an attitude of just blahing merely for the sake of blahing, with no logical blahsis for doing so other than just trying to blahse troublah.

I gave you a chance to show a blah that differed than that stated ablahve or a premise with blah, but now I am left only with what I stated above as the most likely intent based on your refusal to provide any reason for having blah with the blah.

And you have every right to blahsagree with the blah. I just blahrsonally find it to be blahly annoying and rude when someone does so with such few blahs and no blahxplanation or counter-blahrgument. It does nothing to blahpagate discussion and only blahs to cause blahnimosity.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Stop it. You're hurting me!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

16. ow

:rofl: :cry: :spray:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. If The OP Sought Out A Genuine Invitation For Discussion, Maybe It Could've Attained It.

Instead, the thread may be doomed to "just blahing merely for the sake of blahing". It is of my experience that when an opposing view is openly mocked, provoked and taunted in condescending manners, that those that hold such views are not eager to engage in serious return discussion. Instead of blaming them, it might be a good start to see how things could've been portrayed better from the start. An absence of the condescension and mockery would be a good starting point.

I think you provided a lot of good resources here. I think they would've been far better served had they been presented with a sincere request for civil discussion stemmed from a premise of "This is why I hold the reasoning I do, and here is a lot of evidence to support why. I understand some of you disagree, but if you read a lot of what's listed here it is my hope you'd see a lot more where I'm coming from". A tone like that may have been beneficial and conducive to serious discussion, which this topic could use. But the tone used instead was not conducive, but was instead needlessly provocative, which we definitely do not need more of. I'm not trying to come off overly preachy, I just think the many resources you provided could've been better served with the intent of the former tone, as opposed to the latter. Maybe then there could be more than "just blahing merely for the sake of blahing".

That's all I feel the need to say in this thread and I hope you can understand the importance of tone I mentioned and the benefit the alternative may have had.

I'm off to bed. Goodnight.

[omega minimo]

23. Then go do it yourself, mindcrime. No need to waste your time here.

[Guaranteed]

27. You're just wrong.

You've let your anger take you over.

That's it.

[omega minimo]

30. Don't base your opinion on Someone Else's Misinterpretation and Ill-Editorializing

Your personal attack doesn't even make sense and indicates non-understanding of the OP. Please don't filter your view through mindcrime's distorted lens.

[H2O Man]

35. You are not "wrong."

As always, we benefit from looking at the simple model for anything political: there are always three groups -- (a) those who agree with you; (b) those who disagree with you; and (c) the "undecided." Regarding discussions of impeachment on DU, there are three fairly well defined groups as far as your OP goes -- (a) those who favor investigations & impeachment; (b) those who do not; and (c) those who are undecided.

In the past 24 hours, there were some posts on some threads that indicated that those belonging to groups A and B are unlikely to ever reach agreement on this topic. It isn't important to argue the finer points. Some of us read the Constitution and the political climate one way, while others see it very differently. It is a matter of values, which is why there have been some flashes of temper in some of the previous debates.

This OP/thread is clearly geared towards groups "a" and "c." It is not intended to convince those who hold beliefs and values that are very different from those advocating investigations and impeachment.

You are not "wrong" to have the values and beliefs that you do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Couple Of Points Of Correction If I May:

You state:

"There are three fairly well defined groups as far as your OP goes -- (a) those who favor investigations & impeachment; (b) those who do not; and (c) those who are undecided."

There are many who favor investigations and impeachment, but just going about it in a far different way. There are those of us who want the initial rhetoric and focus to be on investigations, not impeachment; those who may very well be in favor of both, but want them done in a certain way or less reckless manner; those who think there are too many putting the impeachment cart before the investigatory horse.

To declare all of them as then technically belonging to group 'b' (since they don't agree with the OP or other's premise of declaring impeachment right now) would be using quite narrow thinking in my opinion. Maybe I misinterpreted your statement. But even if so, there are definitely more than those 3 groups you mentioned. Most of the debating going on within this topic is between the 'a' types and the subgroup 'a' types I just mentioned, not 'b' types. I have seen very few, if any, 'b' type posts. That is why I took your 'b' type to be really portraying the 'subgroup a' types I mentioned, which is why I found that distinction to be quite disingenuous.

Another note to your post would be the statement that "this OP/thread is clearly geared towards groups "a" and "c."". Maybe part of it is, but a blatantly huge part of what it was geared towards was openly mocking and belittling the 'subgroup a' types I referenced. I think we could've done without that, and the OP's message would've been far better for it.

My last personal correction to the post would be your assertion that it isn't important to argue the finer points or that the different 'groups' are too hard nosed to be open minded enough to consider altering their stance. I have a different opinion of my fellow DU'ers and think there are quite a many of them capable of learning or shifting their opinion once reconsidering or becoming aware to details of the topic. In fact, there have been several already who advocated a certain angle of this issue but then changed their stance to a different angle. What would assist with this process is if threads and posts showed a mutual respect for all the groups you mentioned rather than high-fives towards one and mockery/animosity towards the other. Actually, the former atmosphere would benefit many complex topics.

[H2O Man]

55. Those aren't "corrections" ....

they are simply your opinion. You are entitled to them.

On edit: I'll add that those who feel differenly than the pro-investigations & impeachment DUers are not only entitled to their opinions, they are responsible for them. It is not the pro-investigation & impeachment DUers civic duty to "convince" them of anything .... for indeed, whenever any person's opinions or beliefs depend upon someone else --meaning when they are held together by external means -- it simply means that the truth has not taken root within themselves. So if anyone wants to be "convinced" of anything, they own the responsibility .... to investigate for themselves, to decide for themselves .... and then they will act accordingly.

I'm not concerned about DUers who believe differently than I do on this. And I'm not worried about those who are looking closely at a variety of positions .... because every individual has not only the right, but again! the responsibility to themselves and to others to question any and all statements of fact. Indeed, all tyranny rests in that fraud and deceit used to convince people to abandon and suspend that questioning spirit -- as we see with the WMD threat posed by Iraq.

More: the statement that "some folks change" is actually our point -- those who advocate investigations & impeachment. It is the stick-in-the-mud and the bump-n-a-log mentality that continues to say "there aren't enough votes for impeachment." We know that. We know that things change. We trust the process. We recognize that if things hadn't changed, Bush would have a 70% approval rating, American Citizens would be clapping at film highlights of the president prancing across the deck of the aircraft carrier, and there would be a republican Congress being seated in January.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. Sure They Are.

But I digress.

"I'll add that those who feel differenly than the pro-investigations & impeachment DUers are not only entitled to their opinions, they are responsible for them."

It appears you once again are wrongly classifying those who think differently than an 'IMPEACH NOW!!!' type sentiment as being anti-investigations and anti-impeachment. You didn't address my concerns for that quite narrow approach I referenced earlier at all, but instead it seems you have even now reiterated it. Maybe you aren't talking about the types I mentioned, but it would seem logical you had been since I haven't seen anyone here who is against investigations altogether and very few against impeachment altogether, even if gone about in the manner of their liking.

"It is not the pro-investigation & impeachment DUers civic duty to "convince" them of anything .... for indeed, whenever any person's opinions or beliefs depend upon someone else --meaning when they are held together by external means -- it simply means that the truth has not taken root within themselves. So if anyone wants to be "convinced" of anything, they own the responsibility .... to investigate for themselves, to decide for themselves .... and then they will act accordingly."

Not sure why this was thrown in there. I certainly didn't declare it to be your responsibility to convince anyone of anything. But if this topic is to be discussed in a civil manner, it is generally helpful to provide substantive opinion as to why one holds the viewpoint they do. That is far more valuable than say, mocking someone for their alternate opinion. We all know it is our responsibility to seek out truth, which is why we're on DU to begin with.

"I'm not concerned about DUers who believe differently than I do on this."

Neither do I. To each their own, I always say. It's more the tone of condescension, belittling and mockery that can be found that concerned me.

"the statement that "some folks change" is actually our point -- those who advocate investigations & impeachment. It is the stick-in-the-mud and the bump-n-a-log mentality that continues to say "there aren't enough votes for impeachment." We know that. We know that things change."

This is a response that is of a completely different context than my statement. My statement was addressing your direct comment that there is no value in arguing the finer points and hinting that there was no coming together of the different sides. Those were your words and sentiments. I was simply pointing out that there is always value within civil discussion of discussing the finer points and that many here are capable of reaching a common ground on the issue, if the approach were more one of civility than mockery or attack.

I also just reread your original post and realized I had skipped over a comment that I wanted to address: Our difference of opinions, those from 'group a' and 'subgroup a' are not about values whatsoever, and I found the seeming hint that those not in 100% agreement with the rush to impeach mentality as having lesser values to be a bit distasteful, if that is how you meant it.

But all in all, peace anyway. Like you said and I agree with, to each their own, and let civility reign.

[H2O Man]

57. What makes it hard for you

is a need to make one opinion "right," and thus another "wrong." But that is your issue.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. That Is Just An Avoidance Of All The Legitimate Concerns I Raised.

I actually was hoping for a more thoughtful or substantive reply. But since all that was given in return was a dismissive reply containing a false analysis of my premise, I guess there's nothing more to say.

Goodnight. :hi:

[H2O Man]

60. Proof

of what I said.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Unless You Said I Was Accurate And Of Sound Logical Standing, I Find No Proof Anywhere Of Your Claim

I do, however, find further lack of discussion of context on your behalf. I would much rather have seen you respond to the issues I raised.

But again, I digress.

[omega minimo]

65. Don't Be So Blahse

I Just Find It A Sign Of Blah And Blahmacy When One Blahs Something Without Any Blah Blah.

It portrays an attitude of just blahing merely for the sake of blahing, with no logical blahsis for doing so other than just trying to blahse troublah.
I gave you a chance to show a blah that differed than that stated ablahve or a premise with blah, but now I am left only with what I stated above as the most likely intent based on your refusal to provide any reason for having blah with the blah.

And you have every right to blahsagree with the blah. I just blahrsonally find it to be blahly annoying and rude when someone does so with such few blahs and no blahxplanation or counter-blahrgument. It does nothing to blahpagate discussion and only blahs to cause blahnimosity.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Civility Overcomes And Rises AboveTaunting Mockery Every Time.

That's all I have to say.

[omega minimo]

71. Thank you

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. You're Welcome. Glad I Could Help.

[omega minimo]

73. Say No More.

Please.

[omega minimo]

67. What we have in common are the values established in the Constitution and the duty to protect.

This isn’t about values, it’s about how we value our values.

“...those belonging to groups A and B are unlikely to ever reach agreement on this topic. It isn't important to argue the finer points. Some of us read the Constitution and the political climate one way, while others see it very differently.”

What “finer points”? Maybe I missed something but most of the “b” comments I’ve seen don’t seem to be based in any “read of the Constitution” or (recent) history or law or context at all. The “political climate” reduced to “Count the votes, Stupid” is about as stimulating as that old pizza commercial “Go to the freezer, get the box.” We haven’t gotten to the “finer points” because there are endless pointless arguments about “too much confusion about Investigations and Impeachment or Investigations OR Impeachment or Nomination '08 or Impeachment or Do The Right Thing or Strategery.”

Several non-impeachment folk have changed their minds and OP’d about it recently. I didn’t intend the OP to write off the “b” category -- not at all. The “b”s are worthy of information and opportunity to participate with facts and context rather than mere opinion and attitude.

The image “those trapped in the Twilight Zone of Strategery and Spectator Politics who have fallen into pits of congealed goo from the keening jaws of Limbot, O’Lielly and Tony Max Headroom, Kermit the Gingrich, Luntz and Rove” was not meant to pin everybody down, any more than they may already be. The “pits of congealed goo” --that wall of poison jello-- surrounds us all and it is a daily struggle not to get stuck in it.

You point out the variety of attitudes, but also draw a trifold formula, which may be a good tool.... However, my intention was to acknowledge the range of opinion AND point out how a quick google or two provides plenty of information to have a discussion that doesn’t get stuck in semantic games that reinforce misinformation and false choices.

[nashville_brook]

21. blahhahahhhhaha

:evilgrin:

[calimary]

43. Sounds like blahsphemy to me...

:D

[omega minimo]

54. It's An Ablahmination!!

:evilgrin:

[Canuckistanian]

15. Different strategies, same goal

No one realistically believes that impeachment will happen automagically. This is going to be a hard slog, as it was in the last election.

But it must happen. For the Union. For the Constitution. For true Liberty.

Provocation is necessary, if not imperative, in this case. If there is no struggle, there is no goal.

Civility is desired. And preferred. But if not, alternate solutions may be sought. But civility is not justice, nor is civility the main driving force here.

It's reclaiming the country.

[Guaranteed]

26. As well as if its conclusion had actually been CORRECT.

There's a whole lot of rhetoric about what is "constitutionally mandated," but very little discussion about what is actually best for our country.

[omega minimo]

29. There is no mention of "constitutionally mandated" and the "conclusion" is a wealth of info links

available to any and all who are interested in having more informed discussions about this.

[rodeodance]

6. let the show begin!!

[Canuckistanian]

7. We Impeachists need to stick together

In order to prevent future travesties of justice, the pretzeldent MUST be impeached. The historical record shows us the path.

Now, all that's required is the political will.

That may take longer, but the absolute path is clear.

K&R&Bookmarked for later reference.

Canuck out.

[omega minimo]

24. There's an apparent need for basic info prior to attaining "political will"

That was the real point of the OP (not incivility or provocation) which is an apt description of the current state of circular logic circular firing squads... I find THEM "provocative" and :boring:

A bit of fun never hurt no one. A lack of knowlege hurts everyone.


:hi:

[Canuckistanian]

25. Exactly

Who's "provocating" here?

[femrap]

63. I loved you OP!

And I agree with your fun-loving attitude as well.

I don't see any way around getting our Democracy and Constitution back without Impeaching * and dick. I went through Watergate and I can't wait to see prez go down in disgrace as well. Just hope poppy doesn't decide to have the Bad Seed martyred.

Thx for all the info...great work.

[Jcrowley]

9. yepper

https://www.pdamerica.org/store/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=2

K&R

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
V: The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

[Bobbie Jo]

10. Motion to K & R

:kick:

Second?

[H2O Man]

12. A RFK quote:

{A} The great French marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for one hundred years. The marshall replied, "In that case, there's no time to lose. Plant it this afternoon."
-- Robert F. Kennedy

[Canuckistanian]

18. Great quote

Standard axioms:
"Good things come to those who wait"

"Rome wasn't built in a day"

"Slow and Steady wins the race"

"Haste makes waste"

[omega minimo]

22. LOL

and this tree is how old now?................... 230................

[H2O Man]

36. George W.

wants to cut that tree down. Impeachment protects that tree.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Great Work. Lots of good stuff there. K&R.

:yourock:

[northamericancitizen]

19. I love blahyng and valorous visitation . Keep it up!

[dorkulon]

20. Great link here

Crush, Kill, Destroy--Bush needs to be impeached by Allan Uthman

[Ani Yun Wiya]

31. This is excellent.

Your post is well organized and very well stated.

From my perspective, impeachment is job ONE.
I also see it as rather middle of the road and quite the American thing to do.

[Cocoa]

32. how about what's in the best interest of the country?

is that a factor for you? It is for Russ Feingold and me.

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2006/11/21/news/02feingold21.txt

<snip>

“I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense,” Feingold said in response to a question from Al Schulz of La Crosse.

“We are not required to impeach the president simply because he’s committed an impeachable offense, which I think he did with the illegal wiretapping. We have to decide whether it’s in the best interest of the country to go through that process.”

[omega minimo]

37. An honest assessment of the quantity and quality of abuses of power is what's best for the country

and Sen. Feingold may stand for that when the new Congress convenes. He's correct they are not "required" -- but that statement seems to be twisted into a confused "there is no mandate for impeachment" which is like Bush saying "I never said OBL flew airplanes into buildings."

True they are not "required" and there is no "mandate for impeachment" but those semantic points end up confusing people and muddying discussions, along the lines of the professional obfuscators named in the OP (not necessarily with their intent, of course).

Deciding beforehand that "what's best for the country" is trying to dampen and discourage the groundswell of public, city, state and Congressional support for holding this administration accountable is truly horrifying. Esp. given the history of the non-impeachment of Reagan (a mistake) and bogus impeachment of Clinton (another mistake).

The OP provides lots of info. I hope this might help in future discussions. Hate to think people have made their minds up about imaginary predetermined outcomes to the point they don't even look at the facts.

"While impeachment is a very serious step that should not have been trivialized the way it was during the last presidential administration, it is also an indispensable part of a system of checks and balances that sustains our democracy. When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law. This is not a question of supporting one party over another, but of upholding the rule of law over both of them.

"How can Bush and Cheney be charged with crimes after being tried in the Senate? Criminal proceedings, domestic or international, are completely separate from the impeachment process, which is political, not legal. The fact that Clinton had violated the law by lying under oath was seen as central to his impeachment only because he was not being charged with anything remotely approaching an impeachable offense. The public came away imagining falsely that illegal activity was required for impeachment. The impeachment proceedings against Nixon focused on impeachable offenses, which included lying to the public (not a crime) but intentionally omitted tax fraud (a crime, but not a serious abuse of presidential power). An impeachable offense is a threat to our system of government, legal or otherwise. Lying to the citizens of a democracy is a threat to that system of government. Legalizing your crimes through legislation like the Military Commissions Act does not make them any less impeachable offenses. Bush has lied to Congress about the reasons for the war in formal written statements (see his letter and report on March 19, 2003) as well as orally. These actions are felonies. Lying under oath is not the only crime on the books. Bush and Cheney have lied to the public on the same topic. That may not be a crime, but it is the highest possible high crime or misdemeanor, the clearest conceivable impeachable offense.

"If investigations will get us to impeachment, then why not just push for investigations and keep quiet about impeachment so as not to upset people? Because we will then allow the media and Members of Congress to believe that the public does not want impeachment. For activists to be out ahead of Congress Members actually gives those Members the space they need to have positions that are seen as moderate and respectable. Those on the right understand this and are always glad to have organizations further out to the right than themselves. We on the left can learn this from those on the right who have joined and are joining the impeachment movement. If we back off impeachment, Congress will find a way to avoid it. Our inside-outside strategy is to push Congress Members for investigations while publicly creating an uproar for impeachment."

[Cocoa]

41. your OP says that resistance to impeachment is political calculation

that's not true.

[omega minimo]

46. there's a difference b/w strategy and "strategery" -- seems to have something to do with info and/or

questionable assumptions

[AntiFascist]

48. I agree with this!

The problem with the anti-impeachment crowd seems to be that they don't appreciate the seriousness of the crimes committed. Perhaps those who only appreciate what Bush can do for the economy will wake up when they hear that the value of the dollar will continue to fall as oil-producing currencies are shifted out of dollars into other currencies, as pointed out by no less than Alan Greenspan. No doubt much of this has to do with the failure of our criminal endeavors in the Middle East.

Impeachment proceedings are a very serious and a very necessary step, and they should lead to very serious subsequent criminal proceedings.

[rman]

45. How is it in the best interest of the country not to impeach a lying president?

Let me know when Feingold et all have finally "decided" whether or not to impeach.

[Laelth]

33. Nice collection of links and research.

Bookmarked. Thanks.

K&R

:dem:

-Laelth

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. You rebut all the arguments you present, but ignore the *actual* argument against impeachment.

To wit: "it's not possible".

The Democrats do not, and will not until 2009 at the earliest, have the option of impeaching Bush. They have the option of opening impeachment procedings, but there is no chance whatsoever of enough Republicans breaking ranks for them to succeed.

You say, again and again, that you don't want "strategists". Anyone who thinks about this for a minute will realise that that's just a fancy way of saying "I'm not thinking about the consequences of my actions, and I'm proud of it". That's a childish position, which is typical of those calling for impeachment - they resemble nothing so much as children screaming "you MUST make it stop raining" at their parents.

Impeachment procedings would do no good whatsoever, and a great deal of harm - they'd hand the 2008 elections to the Republicans on a plate. I know you don't want to have to think about that, but stuffing your fingers in your ears and demanding that all the wicked strategists stop talking to you won't make it not be true.

[porphyrian]

39. You seem pretty sure of your conclusions.

I guess we should all just quit trying, it's simply hopeless because Donald Ian Rankin thinks it is.
:eyes:

[omega minimo]

40. Your faith-based negative prognosticating has no guarantee of coming true

No one knows what will happen, no one knows how many votes there will be, no one knows how many Republicans will wake up with some integrity (that tide has already started to shift)-- John Dean has commented on the surprises in store during this process (no one knew about the Nixon Tapes ahead of time) if you care to check the links in the OP.

Impeachment occurs in the House. A trial occurs in the Senate. Removal from office is not "impeachment."

Strategery and strategerists hand over responsiblity and integrity for their actions by saying "ach, tis gonna 'appen anyway, why raise a ruckus, such a bother 'n all." The logic of basing decisions on what one pretends is an inevitable outcome is rather childish and silly, isn't it? Life doesn't work like that. We are talking about a PROCESS here. No one knows how it will turn out but it is necessary.

None of this can you possibly know for sure. It is opinion and soothsaying-- maybe right, maybe wrong:

*The Democrats do not, and will not until 2009 at the earliest, have the option of impeaching Bush.
*They have the option of opening impeachment procedings, but there is no chance whatsoever of enough Republicans breaking ranks for them to succeed.
*Impeachment procedings would do no good whatsoever, and a great deal of harm
*they'd hand the 2008 elections to the Republicans on a plate.



Like your post, others have painted the call for impeachment as childish. A comparison was made to a toddler throwing a tantrum for candy and a parent smugly withholding satisfaction--

This is more like the child trying to tell the parent there is a home invasion robbery occurring and a fire was set in the basement, while the smug parents are "stuffing your fingers in your ears and demanding that all the wicked" "children" stop begging for candy-colored, fantasy confections.


The refusal of some to look at the facts and engage in the process seems petulant. The "adults" here are aware of the history of non/impeachment over the past 40 years and much of the solid info provided in the OP links.

[porphyrian]

64. I just wanna know why your strategerists speak like Scots.

You got something against Scots?
;)

[omega minimo]

68. Ack! Aucchh! Em. Erm. Em.....................

:yoiks: someame baist mates er Scots......


(fishing for Mr. Donald Ian Rankin to share wheder he ays a Brit, expat or.............? May influence his opinion on this?)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. Yes, I'm English, as my profile shows.

(My nickname is a Scottish double jig, incidentally, but I'm English rather than Scottish, although I was born in Edinburgh).

But I don't see that that's relevant to the propensity or otherwise of Republican senators to admit that the war they supported wholeheartedly until at most two years ago was in fact a criminal offence of impeachable proportions.

[porphyrian]

38. Sweet. - n/t

[zippy890]

42. great post

big kick
:thumbsup:

[riderinthestorm]

44. Oooh, secret handshakes? Passwords? Let's ramp this club up to speed. Drinks anyone?

I'm in.

Kick!

[omega minimo]

69. How bout a nice "Emperor Sling"?

:toast:


Down the alley, knock on the door with the sliding panel.
Someone opens and says,
"Ollie North"
To enter, say:
"Not a Hero"

:

[Me.]

47. Quite An OP

K & R

[The Count]

49. Point of order: we only need to start: Jr will fold like a cheap umbrella as soon

as the first salvo is shot.
And there is prima facie evidence - so the "we need to find out" argument doesn't wash (i.e:16 words in SOTU?)

[earth mom]

51. Love it! K & R!

"Impeach O'Clock" kicks a$$! :bounce:

[puebloknot]

52. ...keep quiet about impeachment so as not to upset people...

I think the last election shows that people are eager to be "upset" by seeing that the new Congress intends to get back to business as specified in the Constitution.

Not "upsetting people" by failing to impeach Reagan is having its way with us now. If people can't stand the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen and let justice take its course.

Thanks for this compilation of information about impeachment. It's very helpful!

[omega minimo]

53. Well put

Thank you :hi:

[nealmhughes]

62. The House can vote to impeach Bush and Cheney for "picking their feet in Poughkeepsie"

if they wish. For farting in an elevator. For Barney having fleas.

The sticker is that the Senate gets to try the case...

[bloom]

66. kick

:kick:

[wiggs]

74. Another reason, maybe the best reason, for removal is simply

that we are in a real tight spot right now in many, many ways -- especially in Iraq. We need our best people on the job, not the worst...and certainly not the ones that misguided us into it in the first place.

To help resolve Iraq, the ISG report should have made its first recommendation to remove this administration from its position of power. This is a no brainer.

[omega minimo]

75. Perhaps but consider this. "No brainers" got us in this mess!!

:hi: