Why I'm Not Enthusiastic About Impeachment

[cali]

Yes I believe bush is guilty of impeachable crimes. But, if dems take back the House and Senate this year, it's going to be by a slim margin. If he's impeached, as the evidence stands now, he won't be convicted in the Senate. In fact, I doubt he'd be impeached in the House. If Americans aren't behind impeachment, there'll be a backlash and democrats would almost certainly lose a tenuous majority.
It's my impression, and granted, I have nothing to back it up, that the majority of Americans are weary of highly charged partisanship, and they'd view this as revenge on the repukes for impeaching Clinton.

Despite all the egregious failures of Congressional dems, I want them in the majority. Impeachment may very well be a lose/lose proposition. It's chances for success are miniscule. Weighing that against the likely damage to dems, I have to conclude, at least at this point, that starting impeachment procedings would be a huge error.

[Devlzown]

1. I'd rather they concentrate their energies

on bringing an end to the war and bringing the troops home. That's what I care most about.

[Road Scholar]

50. Impeachment would be a good start to world acceptance. nt

[William769]

2. There one difference between the Clinton Impeachment

and a Would be Bush Impeachment. Clinton's was not an Impeachable offense in the publics eye. Bush's would be. And if the Democrats did not act they would not be doing the peoples business. I was always told you can not Impeach a popular President, hence Clinton. Bush? He still has not been able to bounce back and wiping his ass with the Constitution is a Impeachable offense!

[FreedomAngel82]

28. And there was a poll not too long ago

that said 54% of the population supported impeaching Bush if they knew he lied for sure about going to war. We know for damn sure he did. The people were against Clinton's impeachment and during it he had a 60% approval raiting while Bush's is about 38%.

[ikojo]

3. Even if the Dems take back the house in overwhelming

(i.e. 1994 type) numbers I don't think they as a party have the discipline and desire to impeach this president. Too many of them are complicit in going along with his agenda. What the party will do is say the country needs "healing" following the scandals of the Republican controlled congress. It's the same narrative used after the stolen election of 2000, "let's move on, blah, blah, blah..."


No, the Dems are not nearly as disciplined as the Republicans.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. That's where we come in

We can pressure them.

[ikojo]

36. I don't see proof that the blogosphere has any effect on

the Dems as a national party. Look what they did to Mr Hackett, they probably drove him back to the arms of the Republicans. The Dem party leaders in the house and senate dismiss the blogosphere as loonies and out of touch with what they consider mainstream America (that is the beltway).

[ClassWarrior]

4. Yes, let's fail once again to do the right and moral thing...

...in a misguided effort to do the questionably strategic thing.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Greyhound]

40. It's all politics Baby!

Honesty, Integrity, Truth, Morality? How quaint. :eyes:

[Missy M]

5. I agree.....

impeachment proceedings will occur endlessly. The Republicans tried to impeach a Democrat (I think in retaliation over Nixon) and if the Democrats try to impeach Bush it will seesaw back and forth depending on which side is in office. I feel the same way about recalls. Getting people in and out of office should be done at the voting booth. We have to fight to have honest, no fraud elections. I also think the presidency should be decided on the popular vote and we must rid this country of the electoral vote process.

[MadisonProgressive]

8. Impeachment is the official Constitutional tool

for removing a criminal from office. Bushco has commited numerous criminal acts. Clinton's impeachment was a joke. This one would be patriotic. I believe in my heart that Bush will be impeached before his term is up, and it will be very deserved.

[Missy M]

12. I don't deny what you say about Bush but I'm afraid....

the impeachment proceedings would cause a back lash, as cali stated in the original post. Bush still has a large portion of the population agreeing with his war due to their fear of terrorism. I agree Bush has committed criminal acts but proving it is another thing, not to mention it will never happen with the Republican control in Congress. Lets try our hardest to get them voted out in 2006 and 2008.

[MadisonProgressive]

13. Some of those acts have already been proven

One example is the Medicare bill and Bushco's deception of it's cost. About 70% are now against the war (according to polls). I guess I disagree with you, except on tryin gour hardest o vote them out in 06&08.

[cali]

22. Proven where?

In your mind and my mind? That doesn't cut it. Nothing has been proven in the only forums that count; a court of law or the US Congress.

[MadisonProgressive]

44. It's not in my mind - you can google it. It was in the WAPO and NYT

[FreedomAngel82]

30. Oh yes

Let's not do it because the public might backlash against us. :eyes: Please give me a break! 2006 is the key to getting to the point of impeachment.

[MadisonProgressive]

6. Polls show 53% favor impeachment

if Bush is guilty of (take your pick of scandals). With the dems in control of the house OFFICIAL hearings could occur that WOULD be covered by the media. Public opinion WOULD be influenced and that poll number would go up. I personally think the many republicans would be relieved to see it happening.

The truth shall set us free. Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[Virginian]

46. But 53% are not in favor of a President Cheney.

As long as Cheney is VP, I am not in favor of impeachment.

[MadisonProgressive]

47. He would obviously be impeached too

[Virginian]

52. Then let's get things in order...

IMPEACH CHENEY!!!

We need to get him and the other a*** out of the line of succession.

It isn't automatically a 2 for 1. You don't get rid of Trigger Happy by impeaching Dubya.

What do those 58% think happens? The election is reversed by impeachment? Cheney is Dubya's safty net against impeachment. As long as Cheney is in office and his approval rating is less than Dubya's, Dubya will not be impeached.

If you are old enough to remember Watergate... VP Spiro Agnew was made to quietly step down or face the public humiliation of impeachment for his illegal acts. Representative Ford was appointed VP with the approval of congress. Both houses had a Democratic majority at the time. Then, and only then did the idea of impeachment bloom. The Republican minority convinced him to step down on his own (for health reasons) to avoid impeachment and the damage it would do to the party.

Tangent: This could have been a power grab by the neo-cons within the Republican party. Certain staff members of the Ford Administration went on to be major Neo-con leaders such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfewitz(sp). Pat Buchanan, a speach writer for Nixon does not like these guys, did not like their war. Perhaps there is a big division within the Republican party that Reagan convinced everyone to disguise with his, "A Republican does not speak badly about another Republican."

Cart BEFORE horse, Impeach Cheney BEFORE Bush.

[MadisonProgressive]

53. They will all be impeached at the same time

including rummy, condi, and Gonzo!

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr008=ibr2wdz4k2.app7b&page=NewsArticle&id=5054&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1061

[sandnsea]

48. favor "considering" impeachment

IF it can be proved he lied about WMD to start the war. Two very big hurdles to jump there, hurdles too many glibly ignore.

[MadisonProgressive]

49. An investigation would be a start

[ProSense]

7. Americans have been backing impeachment since last summer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2467739&mesg_id=2469312

[bluestateguy]

9. Too many DLC Democrats would not have the stomach for it

You are right about Congress. Say the Democrats did win the House: they'd have like 220-225 seats maximum. There would be too many DLC Democrats who just wouldn't be up for the fight.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Than force them to

Look at Hillary and the filibuster.

[Talismom]

10. My concern is more long term... that the corporatists (fascists) have

already taken over the vast majority of the republican party, are making major inroads into the dems and are producing a truly one party system that is a in no way democratic and keeps us thinking that our vote makes a difference!

[ecstatic]

11. Forget strategy, what about the 2000+ soldiers who lost their lives

and 30,000+ Iraqis? Do they not deserve justice? Sometimes we have to do what is right as opposed to what is the most politically expedient!

[cali]

17. Impeachment

would not bring one jot of justice to those who have lost their lives. As regards politcal expedience, sometimes that is what is right. Also, the statement that politics is the art of the possible isn't merely mindless jargon.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. Oh please!

We can get Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity and take him to the international court and put him in the Hague! So I guess the people shouldn't have gone after Hitler right? Because that wasn't justice either eh?

[BlueCollar]

14. I have to agree with Cali

As much as it sticks in my throat to admit it. Wouldn't progressives be better served by the Dems holding hearings on the six years worth of scandals by the administration, putting forward progressive legislation which would be filibustered by Republicans or vetoed by the WH, and then letting the voters decide in 2008?

[Laelth]

16. I don't think so.

I don't think we'd be better served by playing the nice party again. We poll poorly, time and again, on strength issues (national defense, counter-terrorism, international relations). If we want to convince the American people that we can lead and that we can be strong, we've got to stand for something. We have to protect the Constitution. We have to prosecute those who defile the Constitution. It's that simple.

Why should any voter trust us to protect America from terrorists if we won't even defend the Constitution from attacks by the Republican Party?

Answer me that!

-Laelth

[HamdenRice]

15. If we prove LIHOP/MIHOP, stolen elections, NO citicide ...

I disagree, but that's because I am convinced that the administration is guilty of most of the crimes that DUers have accused them of.

If the opposition can prove

*stolen elections, electronic voting machines that changed vote totals,

*LIHOP/MIHOP on 9/11,

*faked Iraq war intelligence (and not just weasel word "faulty intelligence" or "misled" into war),

*treason (Plamegate, Franklin, Israeli intelligence penetration of DOD),

*deliberate "starve the beast" bankrupting of the federal treasury,

*criminal negligence or worse in Katrina, letting Americans die of thirst and hunger, plus

*ethnic cleansing of New Orleans,

then the public will not only demand impeachment, but the administration members will be lucky if the public doesn't try to lynch the whole crowd from lamposts in DC. At that point, impeachment plus criminal prosecution, conviction and life sentences will be the "moderate" position.

[Caretha]

18. Yeah, I'm right there with you

I'm against impeaching a President for committing treason, starting an illegal war, breaking the law by wiretapping American's without a warrant. Hell that might upset future Presidents of the US. They might have their hands tied and couldn't do exactly what they wanted.

Wouldn't want to start a precedent. No, wouldn't want that. Whoever thought this nation was built on laws sure was stupid. Didn't they know that it was all about politics? :sarcasm:

[cali]

20. Piss poor analysis of my post

and lousy use of heavy handed sarcasm. Quixotic and self-destructive pursuits do not advance justice. If- and it's a big if - we get back the congress, it'll be by a slim majority. Introducing articles of impeachment that will almost inevitably fail, is just such a pursuit. That doesn't mean circumstances couldn't change. Maybe all the pundits are wrong and dems will take back the congress with a margin of 35 seats. Maybe more evidence will emerge. Even liberal constitutional lawyers are divided as to whether impeachment is warrented. As things are now, I absolutely stand by my analysis- which you didn't really address except for your Candide like assessment.

[Caretha]

23. I don't care whether you like my sarcasm

or not. It was well deserved. There comes a time when lines are drawn and you must choose between right and wrong irregardless. Then you must stand up for it, whether it is the popular thing to do or not. I've made my decision where I stand and it looks like you have made yours.

This isn't all about politics - it's about whether the laws of the United States will be obeyed and enforced. That is the real crux of the matter and this is a REAL Constitutional crisis.

We are not simply fighting for which party remains in power. At this point it is a little senseless since distinguishing between who is abetting who down the road to fascism the fastest is almost impossible tell. We have a Dem party who undermines any candidate that is willing to stand up to this nonsense (think Hackett), we have 2 duly elected Presidents who refused or were unable to fight election fraud, we have a congress who voted to allow Bush to go to war on false pretenses, we have a congress who just voted to take Iran to the UN Security on the same trumped up charges as Iraq. I could go on but I'm sure you get the point.

It's not just the Republican party or the Republican administration that needs to be reigned in. Unlike those who drink their party of choices' Koolaide, I refuse. And if you refuse, and then someone else refuses, and then someone else refuses....hell, just like Arlo Guthrie said..."you got a movement".

Until the people of the US decide that we have the power, not the "Party", the same thing will happen again no matter who has the majority.

So here is the News Alert. Defend the Constitution and you can't go wrong.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country

[cali]

26. Meaningless, self-righteous

rhetoric filled with bland generalizations and replete with factual errors and cliches.

"We have a Dem party who undermines any candidate that is willing to stand up to this nonsense (think Hackett)"

And that's why the dem party is supporting Sanders for Senate? Because they're determined to undermine any candidate willing to stantd up for his/her beliefs? Right.

For the record, I'm disgusted by the party's underhanded tactics regarding Paul Hackett. I'm under no illusions about the flaws of the dems. And koolaid comes in all flavors. Personally, I don't buy my ideas wholesale from and menu of political ideology. I'm not going to parrot from the left, middle or right.

[Caretha]

43. Weak and wishy-washy

babbling describes your thinking. You don't seem to think that anyone should be held responsible for criminal activities. Where do you draw the line Cali? Obviously its not when innocent people are killed.

So when do you think we should make the President accountable when he breaks the law. What's the one thing that is over the line for you?

Or is it all about politics?

[ClassWarrior]

24. Tell it to Martin Luther King Jr.

NGU.

[cali]

25. Comparison's

are odious. Particularly meaningless ones.

[ClassWarrior]

37. So MLK Jr.'s quixotic pursuit to advance justice was "meaningless?"

NGU.

[cali]

38. Way to go! Utterly dishonest. That

isn't even remotely what I said, but I am amused by your pretzel logic.

[earth mom]

42. Who's talking pretzel logic here?

You.

Impeach the bastards or this country, it's people and way of life are doomed. Period.

And Damn those who wanna play fricken politics as usual! :grr:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. I agree

and believe it will fragment our resources and energy too much. However, we need to keep the I word out there, because we don't actually need to see it happen to get some mileage out of it.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

21. I'm concerned that our tendency to look for a "bad guy"...

and naming it George W. Bush would impede systemic change. The standard movie narrative is that when the bad guy is gone, the conflict is resolved. But Bush is only a figurehead, a willing puppet. (Yes, a mover in the scheme and an evil man, but pretty small in the big picture.) So let's see what balance is struck between anti-GOP backlash and stolen elections, and see how the Congress looks in '06. Removing Bush from office won't bring back the hundred thousand dead innocents, nor will it end tyhe injustices suddenly. I'd like to see the fucker impeached, or sent to The Hague after his term is through. But the measures against Bush ought to be part of a broader and powerful campaign against corruption, an effort to rebuild rights, freedom, fair representation, respect, checks and balances, responsibility, transparency, and overall accountability. It wouldn't help if Bush were gone and Americans, used to the action movie formula, felt, "Hey, the bad guy's gone, so all's well (and I wish the Democrats would stop griping)."
Just my opinion, which might well change by tomorrow.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. So you care more about

your public image instead of doing the right thing? :mad: Sorry I don't think so. As long as we have the majority, slim or not, we should do this because they have BROKEN THE LAW.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Cali I Agree With Your Assessment, But Doing What's Right Overtakes Doing

what's popular.

In the case of *, the right thing is impeachment regardless of the potential political backlash.

[cali]

35. OMC, you're undoubtedly one of the people here

who I hold in high esteem. but I disagree that the result is merely political backlash. As I've pointed out, with a slim dem majority, it's extremely unlikely that articles of impeachment would garner enough votes to pass the House. The damage incurred wouldn't merely be to a political party, but to the nation as a whole. We simply can't afford to have repubs controlling the Congress. It's far too dangerous. Should the dems get control, I fully support real investigations into the administration's actions regarding pre-war intelligence, NSA domestic spying (the best bet for impeachment, IMHO) and Katrina. If the evidence is overwhelming than there isn't an option. Dems will have to persuasively make the case to the country. And if the evidence is overwhelming, republicans in the House won't have an option either. What I don't support, is dems gaining control and rushing to draw up articles of impeachment. That would be disasterous.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. I Think I'm Grasping You Better Now.

You're not saying that when we regain control of congress we shouldn't try to impeach, you're saying that when we do we should do it right with hearings, evidence and making the case to the people, rather than just gaining control and immediately, haphazardly and recklessly rushing the articles of impeachment just because we could, without first having gone through the proper steps of due diligence.

Is that correct? If that is a better assessment of what you are talking about, than I'm with you 100%. I think he absolutely should be impeached and look forward to us regaining control so we can do what's right, but it still needs to be done responsibly and after there have been hearings and evidence gathering.

What I do think we should rush to do, is that as soon as we control congress rushing to get these long overdue legitimate hearings going. Now that I support asap.

[cali]

41. Yes, that's what I mean.

I didn't explain it very well first time around. I keep seeing these rush to impeachment posts around here. People saying that the first thing we should do if we regain Congress, is to impeach. That's stupid and reckless. I'm all for real investigations and hearings. Should that lead to impeachment, I'm supportive.

[Caretha]

51. Interesting

I noted that you were utterly against impeachment prior to my post and were quite "pissy" calling my post and me meaningless and self-righteous. But now that OMC has stated a similar opinion as mine, and he is someone whom you "hold in high esteem", you have changed your tune and agree that impeachment is perhaps the way to go as long as there are investigations and overwhelming evidence.

I'm glad someone you respect and admire has been able to help you be less rigid in your thinking.

I am curious though why you think that the Dems would rush to file articles of impeachment once the majority, without due process of law and investigations. This of course is the proper and legal process that must also take place and would shine light on the crimes committed for all Americans to see. That in itself would have a cleansing effect on our country and would be a first step in garnering the respect we have lost from other nations.

One of the reasons I have come down hard on your thread and original post is its negative connotations. I'm pretty tired of people's negativity. I don't personally care if they are negative, I only personally care when they try to spread it and hopelessness throughout the community. You see, what we project into this world becomes reality and the more people you are able to persuade with your negative ideas/thoughts the more likely it is to become reality.

Your reality or the one you were projecting is a real nightmare in my book - no more constitution or rule of law - means the end of America and the real horror begins if that happens.

[Booster]

34. While I agree with you about the backlash to Dems, I still would

like to see Bush impeached because of the message it would send to the rest of the world that we are a nation who believes in justice, and if our country is corrupt as it is, we will do something to correct the problem. Otherwise, we are no better than any country with a corrupt government no matter what that government is. We should be the country to set examples, not just lay back and say "whatever". We can do better than that.

[Castilleja]

45. I would like to see all his minions, appointees and anything

this bunch has done gone, also. Doesn't work if you just impeach him. Got to remove all his detritus as well.