If we don't impeach Bush, apologize to these presidents

[yurbud]

Run time: 02:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUvM_Dby7I   Posted on YouTube: June 13, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 13, 2007 By DU Member: yurbud Views on DU: 4590

 
Compares offenses of Bush with the two presidents who were impeached and one who resigned to avoid being impeached.

[liberal N proud]

1. K&R

[focusfan]

2. i don't know why Nancy Pelosi won't Impeach Bush

she's stupid if she's doesn't get rid of him

[yurbud]

4. I'm afraid I know the reason--people have short memories

if Bush & Cheney are impeached and removed, they will be forgotten by the '08 election, which is what happened in '76 after Nixon resigned. You would think Carter would have won in a landslide, but it was actually a squeaker, and Ford could have even won if he hadn't pardoned Nixon.

[pat_k]

11. Collective denial and shared delusion are powerful forces. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=337814

And "our side" tends to fall victim to self-defeating notions. Under the guise being realistic, careful, dispassionate, and rational, we find we the seeds of immobility, abandoned principles, and weakness: http://january6th.org/saving-ourselves.html

But impeachophobia not a hopeless affliction: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23

[yurbud]

14. did you write that January 6th thing? it's good! a lot of us have been saying similar things

I've been having the same fight with my faculty union here in California. They say we should aim for what's "doable" in legislation, but the doable proposals fail to mobilize the troops, and then the legislature waters them down to toothless resolutions that do nothing. It would be better to aim higher, rally the troops, and either get something or have a lot of angry troops who are ready for the next fight.

[pat_k]

16. if you mean. . .

the http://january6th.org/">www.january6th.org Declaration of Intent and http://january6th.org/jan6points.html">jan6points.html, we're responsible for the particular form, but the documents are a product of the input of many. As you say, "a lot of us have been saying similar things." We simply sought to capture and reflect back the simple truths and moral principles. Any kudos must be shared by all thedeanpeople -- whether they know they are "deanpeople" (i.e., people who have transformed their relationship to power; people who routinely turn talk into action; people who transform their complaints into action).

[yurbud]

17. unfortunately, I think problem with Dems is not just methods but goals

Not enough of them actually want to do the right things

[pat_k]

18. Group think is a powerful thing. . .

They are immersed in an insular world where wrongheaded assumptions are never challenged. Reality is interpreted through a broken lens of "conventional wisdom" that begets wrongheaded conclusions about what "the right thing" is. Those conclusions make a bizarre sort of sense within the created reality. To outsiders looking in it looks like they are willfully refusing to do the right thing. But when we view them thus, we are less likely to be motivated to engage. We will tend to write them off.

The defenses against reality that a group puts up are in a sense "willful," but their failure to act isn't driven by bad intent. It is driven by human frailty. (Note 1)

Allowing themselves to fall victim of groupthink does not excuse them, but if we see the dynamics that drive their failure to act we have a better shot at saving themselves from themselves.

They are just people. They "want" to do the right thing. They are suffering the consequences of their repeated failure to recognize what the right thing is. None of them "want" to repeat a horrible mistake like the one they made when they failed to oppose the Authorization to Use Military Force. If they fail to impeach they will pay a personal price for their dereliction. The personal price can't compare to the price the nation will pay, but if we are to rescue the nation we must save enough of them from themselves to make impeachment a reality.

When viewed in this way, there is hope. They want us to save them, even if they don't know it yet. Lobbying for impeachment is an intervention of sorts -- something that does not take "a movement" or great numbers. A group's defenses against reality are strong, but their conclusions are based on a house of cards. Their assumptions can't stand for long when directly challenged. The problem is that those assumptions are not challenged within their social world.

Knocking down the house of cards requires face-to-face, two-way communication. Their rationalizations are a product of social and interpersonal dynamics. It's going to require direct, human intervention to knock them down. More of us need to get in there, sit across a table with staffers or the Reps themselves, ask questions, elicit their rationales and challenge them. It's a like "Whack-a-Mole." As you knock down one, another pops up. When ones you thought you'd already whacked pop up again, you just have to whack 'em again.

Grassroots lobbying has almost exclusively been one-way communication. Email, faxes, calls, marches all demonstrate numbers, which is a good thing, but it is not the most effective way to motivate them to question the beliefs that make up their created reality. As long as the rationales and assumptions of their insular world remain intact, demands roll off like water off a ducks back.

Even when impeachment advocates do sit down with folks on the Hill, it's often just one-way communication at close range. We make their demands. We "get heard." If the beltway excuses are elicited at all, advocates tend to respond with anger, which can elicit a defensive response that actually strengthens the wrong-headed beliefs.

Many rank and file Dems don't like the notion of attacking "our own." If we recognize that the folks on the Hill WANT to be saved, it becomes clear that the so-called "attacks" are a sort of "tough love." We are not inflicting harm to "the Party." We're saving it.

In general, folks on our side don't like to "shame" people, but like it or not shame is a powerful motivator. When staffers or Reps put their irrational beliefs into words, simply looking at them like they are idiots (because those assumptions sound so idiotic) gives them a chance to actually "hear" how asinine their automatic responses actually are. They may feel stupid or "shamed," but when we follow with arguments grounded in simple truths and moral principles, we give them something they can adopt to feel "smart" again.

Of course, the wrongheaded assumptions aren't limited to the beltway. They are pervasive "out here" because the insiders control the "dialog" fed to the public by the infotainment industry. Challenging the rationalizations out here is as critical as challenging them on the Hill. Challenging each other is something anyone can do. Those who aren't able to engage in direct lobbying on the Hill can nevertheless be extremely effective citizen lobbyists "out here."

The key to both the "inside" and the "outside" approaches is arming as many of us as possible with the simple truths and moral principles that expose the house of cards for what it is.

This approach and the conclusions behind it may be misguided, but we don't seem to be making much progress with the "standard" methods of grassroots lobbying, I figure a shift in perspective and tactics is worth a shot. Since it takes a relatively small number of citizen lobbyists in each congressional district who are willing to sit down with staffers and Reps and engage in "whack a mole" style lobbying, I figure it's something worth promoting.


_____________________________________________________________

1. Characteristics of group think include:
   
   • Overestimation of the Group
     Illusion of invulnerability, Belief in the Inherent Morality of the Group
   
   
   • Closed-Mindedness
     Collective Rationalizations and Stereotypes of Outgroups
   
   
   • Pressures toward Uniformity
     Self-censorship, Illusion of Unanimity, Direct Pressure on Dissenters, Self-Appointed "mindguards"
   
   General factors that led group members astray:
   
   • Diffusion of Individual Responsibility:
     When we’re alone, we realize that either we respond to an event, or no one does. If others are around, we are more likely to defer; there are costs to intervening, and we can avoid those costs if others choose to intervene.
   
   
   • Status Quo Bias:
     We have an exaggerated preference for the status quo, and if there is no status quo, we opt for the default choice.
   
   
   • Informational Conformity:
     We learn about an element of physical or social reality by observing other people’s reactions to it, often without even realizing it.
   
   Sources: http://web.mit.edu/16.459/www/Teams2.pdf and http://www.wws.princeton.edu/wwac/files/psych_3.doc

[yurbud]

20. I was thinking more of Upton Sinclair quote on relationship between money and convictions

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

We are the ones with the difficulty and Democrats are the man only slightly less often than Republicans.

[pat_k]

21. Indeed. And defending ones self-image can be. . .

. . .an even more powerful motivator for willful ignorance. Confronting something that shakes your sense of self to the core is a kind of death. It can be a threat more powerful than the threat of losing ones livelihood.

Recognizing the simple truth -- that fighting for impeachment has been a moral imperative for years; that they have been derelict for years -- is a big hurdle to jump. It's the old Catch 22. The longer they fail to do that which is demanded by their oath and their image of themselves as "good people," the harder it is to see that their refusal to impeach is an intolerable failure that can only be viewed as the act of a "bad person."

As I noted, the group defenses against reality are powerful. Personal defenses come into play too. But the obvious lunacy of their rationalizations makes their rationalizations vulnerable to challenge. Certainly they'll kick back with denial and rationalization. That's why it is so important to conquer the rationalizations "out here" too. The more we can isolate them in their insanity, the harder it will be to maintain their illusions.

We face the same "self-image" barrier as a nation. Confronting the truth -- that the USA is a War Criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens -- is a powerful blow. One that we are seeing A LOT of resistance to.

[yurbud]

22. cognitive dissonance is a problem on a lot of issues with public and pols, but for pols, admitting

what they've done would be like a first visit to pedophile cannibals anonymous--it's a big hurdle to stand up and say they have a problem.

"My name is Joe, and I sold out my country, condemned our troops to death or life with missing limbs, and approved of burning babies to death to steal the oil from under them.?

[pat_k]

23. Tales of confession, redemption, "seeing the light" captivate

Stories of redemption are compelling. They grab us. Americans tend to embrace the reformed "sinner." Realizing this can make it easier for the "sinner" to see, and change, the error of their ways.

One of the points we tried to impress on Mada Liebman (Corzine's senior advisor) in Dec '04 was that the fact that Corzine was highlighted in the opening of Fahrenheit 451 put him in a unique position. (He was shown leaning over and laughing with another Senator as the Members of the CBC pleaded for a Senator to stand up). Fairly or unfairly, when Corzine was "caught on tape" responding to congratulations from a colleague he become a "poster boy" for the Senate's failure to object to the illegitimate Florida electors in 2000. He could erase the stain, and even turn it to his advantage, by confessing his error, declaring his intent to object to the Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005, and taking the lead as "poster boy" for Senate courage.

When our leaders express genuine regret for a past mistake, and then stand up and do the right thing, Americans generally respond VERY positively. (As Senator Boxer learned.)

We weren't able to persuade Corzine to "do the right thing" on January 6th, 2005, but I still think it's worthwhile to point out the political benefits reaped by being the first to stand up and say "I've been wrong. I can't undo the past, but I can do the right thing now." Of course, all too often, leaders refuse to go "all the way." Americans tend to be turned off by those who just stick their toe in to "test the water." They see half-measures for what they are.

For example, Kucinich took the "half-measure" path on both the grounds (going with "lying into war" instead of torture) and the target (only Cheney). He must be commended for doing far more than others, but if someone points to him and says "he doesn't appear to be benefiting much" the answer is (1) he is reaping tangible benefits in money and support, and (2) the benefits would have been far greater if he had jumped in with both feet.

The Democratic establishment has become "reactionary" (always reacting; rarely acting). They are obsessed with what the fascist wing of the Republican Party is doing to them, or will do to them. Many are not in the habit of thinking about what they should do apart from all that "noise" of political gamesmanship where perception, not substance, rules.

Moral arguments are the antidote. The moral imperatives are always the bottom line, but political arguments can help "clear away" some of the "noise." If we can persuade them that the political rewards of impeachment, and the political risks of failing to impeach, outweigh the fears that are immobilizing them, they may finally be able to hear the moral case and act.

If the notion that they are risking their political futures by refusing to impeach gets a foothold, they are more likely to figure out a way to "do the right thing," even if it means they must recognize that they have been behaving immorally to date.

[yurbud]

26. I think this is why Edwards is the candidate to watch of the top 3

His apology was incomplete, but Hillary is essentially unrepentant and Obama wasn't there yet.

Edwards evolution on the war mirrors the public's, which means they could identify with him.

Kennedy got a lot of brownie points with the public with his apology over the Bay of Pigs (although it probably cost him his life).

[pat_k]

27. and I think we may have the best shot. . .

. . .of persuading Edwards to be the first of the "top tier" candidates to take up the fight to make impeachment a reality. He is still an insider -- a number of his campaign operatives are veterans of the Gore campaign, and "strategery" is a hard habit to break -- but he has greater exposure to reality then the folks still on the Hill. (Those candidates have a double whammy: they are beltway insiders surrounded by the "best" campaign stratergerists they can buy.)

Edwards has accused Bush and Cheney of turning Americans into torturers. For example:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/9/28/12224/6829">Sept '06 blog:
President Bush is now proposing legislation which will repudiate the writ of habeas corpus and grant him the power to imprison whomever he pleases for as long as he pleases without trial, charge, or judicial review. This bill signals to the rest of the world that the United States government condones torture.

http://www.nowpublic.com/john_edwards_statement_on_fighting_terrorism">June 7, 2007 truthout
Ghraib, Guantanamo, spying on Americans, torture. None of this has made us safer,
and all of it has undermined American values and the perception of American
values around the world.

Any public figure with access to a big microphone sounds nuts when they accuse Bush and Cheney of openly violating the Constitution and U.S. Code to turn Americans into torturers, and then fail to demand immediate impeachment. It's like a prosecutor and police chief who publicly accuse a mass murderer of killing in plain sight, but fail to indict and declare their intent to use all the power at their command to apprehend the killer. That failure is effectively a declaration of their intent to leave the murderer free to massacre again.

Edwards' assertion that "As president, I will close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture." (http://www.cfr.org/publication/13432/">May '07 Address Council on Foreign Relations), does nothing but promote the intolerable lie that the American presidency has the power to nullify and "restore" the dictates of our Constitution and U.S. Code at whim.

Edwards is not nuts. He is somewhat removed from the irrational self-destructive beliefs that immobilize the folks on the Hill. This makes him a good target. His own words give impeachment advocates the ammo they need.

[yurbud]

15. One thing Bubba did well: consider long AND short term

If you have a problem with gangs, the liberal temptation is to just figure out how to give kids alternatives to joining one whereas the GOP scores points by saying lock them all up.

The correct response is two pronged: fix the underlying problem, but also protect society from those who have already gone wrong by locking them up.

[pat_k]

12. Tragically, it is their failure to impeach that's driving their plummeting approval. . .

. . .but they don't see it. Even worse, the strategerists are probably pushing the notion that their approval is going through the floor because they've "overreached."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=34242&mesg_id=34532">More in post #11. . .

[Drunken Irishman]

25. How can you impeach without support of Republicans?

You would need a majority in the house, which is possible, but highly unlikely. That would take EVERY Democrat to vote for it, and I'm not sure they have enough votes to reach a majority, since I doubt you'll find one Republican to vote for it and a few Democrats as well. But even if they did get it through the house, then it moves on to the Senate, where the Democrats would need a two-thirds majority. The odds of ever getting enough Republicans to vote for impeachment is probably about as good as it was getting enough Democrats to vote to impeach Clinton in 1998. Or in other words, not bloody likely.

I think it's great you guys have this pie in the sky belief that Bush can be impeached. But the current climate would not support such a thing, especially with Democrats having a razor thin majority in the House and Senate. So all these people blaming the Democrats need to realize there's nothing they can do. The Democrats can't impeach without Republican support and NO Republican, especially in the Senate, is going to vote to impeach Bush. It just isn't going to happen and yet that's the Democrats fault?

[pat_k]

28. By introducing articles on torture against both Bush and Cheney

. . .and letting the chips fall where they may.

Introduce articles on 1) the war crime committed when Bush and Cheney declared Gitmo to be a Geneva-free zone and 2) the abuse of signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment.

Force House members to choose: defend the Constitution or defend torture. If the first set of charges fails to pass, introduce another set. Bush and Cheney have abused power to commit so many crimes against our constitutional democracy they could vote on an impeachment resolution every month.

When articles are voted out (a very LIKELY outcome), force Senators to vote to defend torture or redeem the USA from its status as a war criminal nation. The Senate rejected torture in McCain's anti-torture amendment by a margin of 90-9. Force them to defend Bush's power to render Congress powerless (which he did when he nullified McCain's amendment with a signing statement). Force them to defend the Pariah in Chief and his puppet master Cheney -- men that many of them are scrambling over each other to "distance" themselves from.

If the Republican establishment has it's way, when confronted with real charges that they will have vote on if it goes to Senate trial, the resignation of Bush and Cheney is a FAR more likely outcome. Republicans Senators, joined by many in the Republican establishment, are going to be pushing hard to escape being forced to choose between voting to defend Bush and Cheney or voting to hand the WH keys to Pelosi. A vast majority of Republicans are likely to agree that handing the keys to someone like Danforth would be a FAR preferable outcome

When prosecutors indict, they "win" when the accused makes a deal to avoid trial. Impeachment is little different.

Whatever the outcome, to fail to accuse and seek removal is no better than a prosecutor and police chief who publicly accuse a mass murderer of killing in plain sight, but fail to indict and declare their intent to use all the power at their command to apprehend the killer (whether or not they succeed). That failure is effectively a declaration of their intent to leave the murderer free to massacre again.

And refusing to impeach is a declaration of intent to leave Bush and Cheney free to torture, illegally spy, render Congress -- our Voice -- powerless by abusing signing statements to nullify the laws we pass (even those passed with veto-proof majorities).

Leaving a killer at large to murder is a trivial error compared to leaving the massive power of the American presidency in the hands of men who have murdered the Constitution. Men who have arrogated unto themselves the unconstitutional and Un-American power to use the massive power of the American military to murder hundreds of thousands at whim.

Refusal to impeach is nothing less than insanity -- the insanity of the deluded, insular world of Capital Hill.

Their oath is an INDIVIDUAL oath. Their duty to "support and defend" and INDIVIDUAL duty. It doesn't matter if a Member of the House or Senate stands alone or with a legion of Americans and colleagues, to fail to take up the fight for impeachment is an intolerable dereliction of duty.

Torture and abuse of signing statements (a single example of each is enough) is the simplist, most compelling, and indefensible case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1118007&mesg_id=1119040">SCOTUS declared them War Criminals with the Hamdan decision

Every time Cheney defends "dunking" he is committing a war crime.

When Bush declared Guantanamo to be a Geneva-free zone, he committed a war crime, which he openly continued for at least three years. There was NEVER any doubt that Geneva applied. Not even their stacked court could escape reality.

Geneva requires parties to the treaty to enact the dictates of the treaty in their own laws. We did so with our War Crimes statute (Title 18 section 2441). Gutting that law by legislation or executive order is a war crime.

While people may be loathe to say it, the Members of Congress (Democrats included) who voted for the War Criminals Protection Act of 2007 committed a War Crime.

There is a reason that war crimes are subject to the penalty of death. To motivate anyone with the power to commit such crimes from stepping anywhere near "the line."

"I didn't know where the line was" is not a defense. There is no "unringing the bell."

Impeachment isn't about "them" it's about us. We must impeach to rescue the USA from its current status as a War Criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens.

Impeachment is for us, but justice demands retribution. For that, Bush, Cheney, and their co-conspirators will have to face prosecution at the Hague.

[Drunken Irishman]

29. The outcome could actually hurt the Democrats.

Especially if they don't get enough support to actually go through with it. Then we're left with nothing but a moral victory, since we tried. Well I don't think that's good enough. The most realistic scenario that comes from Democrats introducing articles of impeachment is that it's shot down in the house, and everyone's left laughing at the Democrats for blowing it. We're not going to get the votes, because right now not enough Americans want impeachment to persuade Republicans and some Democrats to vote for it.

This is why the impeachment process failed miserably against Clinton, because they didn't have the other party's support (this time the Democrats) and the general public was pretty much against it. Just because he has a low approval rating does not mean Americans want to impeach. I do, but if you can't have at least 60% American support, no party will go ahead with it. It'd be political suicide.

[pat_k]

30. It is never "good politics" to be complicit in atrocities.

First, even if impeaching Bush and Cheney did hurt the Dems, so what?

Allowing Bush and Cheney to turn the USA into a war criminal nation without a fight is intolerable. Who cares if the fight costs the Dems politically? We must fight to impeach to restore our self-esteem, not as Democrats, but as AMERICANS. If Democrats lead the fight, we can be again be proud Democrats. If the Republicans beat the Dems to the punch, it will be a horrible blow to the Democratic Party, but very good for America.

In the unlikely event that articles don't pass the House, I can't imagine who would be laughing (aside from the 15% who make up the American fascist faction). I don't think anyone will be laughing when the Dems keep introducing new articles, and keep making the case for impeachment on one of the many grounds we have. There is NO legitimate defense for torture, illegal spying, rule by signing statement, or terrorizing the American people with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes."

But suppose you are right and all they win is a "moral victory"? A moral victory is a heck of a lot better than what they are "achieving" now. Nothing short of impeachment wins them even a "moral victory" becuase anything short of impeachment fails to say "NO! The USA unequivocally rejects the actions of this outlaw White House."

Suppose you are right and "everyone's left laughing at the Democrats for blowing it." So what? We expect the men and women of our military to "take" being shot at and blown up to "support and defend." Why should we expect less from Members of Congress, who take the same oath? Why shouldn't we expect them to "take" being laughed at?

They've already lost the approval of 75%. Americans know that they aren't doing anything capable of stopping Bush or making him "change course." Impeachment is the only "lethal" weapon. They aren't even pulling that weapon out. What wimps. If it weren't so tragic, I'd be "laughing at the Democrats for blowing it." Unfortunately, there is nothing funny about their dereliction.

Second, impeaching Bush and Cheney is GREAT politics for the Democrats.

Failure to act is TERRIBLE politics. Their refusal to impeach is exacerbating the problems that are destroying the Democratic Party. Leading the fight to impeach and remove would solve those problems.

Their Number 1 problem is the perception that they are weak. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would demonstrate commitment and fortitude. Limiting themselves to peashooter half-measures incapable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to, when they have a gun in their pocket that IS capable of stopping them, just confirms the image that Democrats are weak.

Their Number 2 problem is their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. Impeaching Bush and Cheney allows them to define themselves as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution -- pretty heady stuff. As long as impeachment is "off the table," Democratic leaders can't accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes against the nation in strong terms because it would beg the question "If they are so bad, why aren't you impeaching?" Their refusal to impeach traps them in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.

Impeaching Bush and Cheney is not just demanded by their oath, it carries with it the potential for enormous political benefit. It's an unprecedented opportunity to inspire and engage Americans who have given up on both Parties.

Failing to impeach is not just a morally bereft, it is an enormous political risk.

You'd think they would have learned from the terrible consequences of their past failures.

If they fail to impeach, the Dems may find themselves watching, scratching their heads, as a Republican president is sworn in 2009. It could be "Deja vu all over again" --- a repeat of 1997 when they watched, dumbfounded, as the WH slipped from their waiting hands. They "knew" the Iran Contra would take the Republicans down, even though their refusal to do more than slap Bush on the wrist trivialized the crimes.

And Bush I made Bush II and the horrors of our current national crisis possible.

Standing and fighting for our treasured principles always benefits leaders who do so. Usually in the immediate term. Sometimes they are not lauded as heroes until later. Failing to fight because you fear political consequences is the definition of cowardice. When a Party gains a reputation for cowardice, as the Democrats have, it harms every single candidate who runs under the Party label. Even if memory on the Hill is too short to recall 1987, you'd think the ones who voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force would have learned that lesson.

With Congressional approval in free fall, "staying the course" with Nancy "off the table" Pelosi is irrational

The impotent gestures they've made to date have driven http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,0,7184922.story?coll=la-home-center">approval of Congress to the lowest level in a decade. Unless they wake up to reality and impeach, their continued impotent gestures will probably lose them not just the White House, but control of Congress too.

In politics, Strong and Wrong beats Weak and Right any day of the week.

And it crushes WEAK and WRONG.

Their choice couldn't be simpler.

Impeach and be strong.

Refuse and be wrong.

Impeach to Win, Refuse, You Lose.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. What good does it do if we can't impeach?

That's essentially the point here. The climate is not right for impeachment and so we most likely will ultimately lose. You don't think it can have a counter effect on our ultimate goal? If the Democrats impeach, and lose, which most likely will be the outcome, the Republicans can use this to hurt us in the long run. What exactly would change if we vote to impeach and don't have enough votes? Do we feel proud of ourselves for the moral victory? I wouldn't. Impeach if you have the votes, otherwise nothing comes of it except a political wedge issue that will most likely benefit the Republicans. If we can't get the votes to impeach, it WILL benefit Bush over the Democrats.

So maybe you support impeaching and then watching the Democrats look like complete fools (just as the GOP in 1999) because they don't have the votes. I do not, because I think in the long run that will hurt our cause more than help. The only way you can impeach is if you know you'll have the support of the public, or the votes to force his removal of office. Anything less will a futile effort.

[pat_k]

32. I've cited at least 5 ways that it "does good"

I've cited at least 5 ways that failing to impeach does harm.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. And I disagree with you.

That's the bottom line. I think if we impeach and lose, it will be thrown in our faces for a long time and will disrupt our situation far more than it will help. I think many Americans would rally behind Bush if this were the case and in the end, nothing will have changed. We're not going to impeach Bush, it won't happen, because they don't have the votes, so he'll still be in office over the next year and a half and the Democrats will come off as nothing but petty politicans. That could ultimately harm our chances in 2008, which means a Republican president for another 4 years.

[pat_k]

34. Your assertion contradicts no point in my case.

I don't see how the possible outcome you predict constitutes "the bottom line" since I account for it in my case.

You have not acknowledged or addressed the political risks of failing to impeach that I cite.

You have not acknowledged or addressed the potential benefits I cite.

You have not acknowledged or argued against the likelihood that, if they fail to impeach Bush, they are likely to suffer the same consequences they did when they failed to impeach Reagan and Poppi/ (i.e., lost the WH)

You have not acknowledged or addressed the factual and logical case that impeachment is VERY likely to pass the House. And that if it passes the House, resignation is more likely than a Senate trial.

You have not acknowledged or addressed the fact that impeachment is not a "one shot" deal. (i.e., you fear certain consequences when they "lose," but they don't "lose" unless they stop fighting. Failure of one resolution doesn't stop them from introducing another.)

You have not acknowledged or addressed the fact that the approval of Congress is in free fall; that the impotent gestures they are making -- gestures they KNOW are not capable of changing a thing -- has made them the subject of ridicule.

You have not acknowledged or addressed the fact that they must impeach to fulfill their oath to "support and defend." (the REAL "bottom line")

As far as I can tell, you base your conclusion that Members of the House should not fight to pass articles of impeachment almost exclusively on one thing: the belief that if they fight and lose -- either in the House or Senate -- Democrats will be ridiculed.

You assert further that "the public will rally behind Bush" but provide no basis for that belief.

You assert that impeachment will "disrupt our situation" but don't describe what that might look like or provide a basis for believing the "disruption" (whatever it may be) is likely.

You apparently assume that failure is likely, but provide no factual or logical argument for that assumption.

You do not put the consequences you fear into any context. You do not account for the possibility of success, the potential benefits of fighting for impeachment, or the potential risks of failing to fight. Such an incomplete risk benefit analysis is a weak basis for any conclusion.

The potential risks you cite -- failure, ridicule, rallied public, and vague "disruption" -- all appear to be grounded in the assumption that the impeachment of Bush will be "just like" the impeachment of Clinton.

There is no basis on which to conclude that the public reaction to a failed impeachment of Bush would be "just like" their reaction to the failed impeachment of Clinton.

Your assumption that there was widespread ridicule or disgust with the impeachment of Clinton is not born out by the facts. Americans wanted him to stay in office. That is the outcome they got. Most were quite satisfied that the process "worked." The people who ridicule and disdain the "House Managers" in Clinton's impeachment are politically active Democrats -- a group that, unfortunately, does not yet make up a vast majority of the electorate. But they are a group that is far more likely to be delighted to see anyone stand and fight to impeach than to ridicule.

In every respect, the impeachment of Clinton and the impeachment of Bush are opposite.

Clinton was very popular nationally and internationally

Bush is a national and international pariah

Clinton's offense was a trivial, personal matter that had absolutely no relation to the integrity of our constitution and our government. (It wasn't even perjury as many claim because the court found that the lie was immaterial to the Jones case).

Bush and Cheney are committing violations of law so grave they are subject to the penalty of death. Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min"). They have arrogated unto themselves absolute and unlimited power that violates the SOLE moral principle on which our nation is founded (i.e., the principle of consent). They are violating the constitution and destroying the integrity of the nation.

Clinton's impeachment was forced through despite the opposition of a majority of Americans

A majority of Americans want Bush impeached (60% "want the bush presidency over now" and 51% wanted impeachment to be a priority in the new congress -- a number that has undoubtedly grown, but pollsters are inexplicably refusing to poll on impeachment)

The impeachment of Clinton supposedly "distracted" Clinton from accomplishing things that a vast majority of the nation wanted him to accomplish. (It probably had very little real effect; it only took a couple months start to finish.)

The impeachment of Bush and Cheney could "distract" them from accomplishing an agenda that the vast majority of the American people want stopped.

------------- Re: "What good does it do. . ?" -----------

You already have my answer. Here's a question for you.

When a police chief and prosecutor publicly accuse a mass murderer of killing in plain sight, what good does it do to indict and declare their intent to use all the power at their command to apprehend the killer?

If they believe the killer is likely to evade them should they tell the public they don't want to "waste their time" looking for the guy? Should they, for all intents and purposes, declare their intent to leave the killer at large to massacre again?

By your logic, that is precisely what they should do. Of course, the public would be outraged. And so they should be. But leaving a single killer at large doesn't compare to leaving the massive power of the American presidency and the American military in the hands of outlaws who can kill hundreds of thousands with a single "unitary authoritarian executive" order.

[Drunken Irishman]

35. It's quite simple.

We impeach and lose, which will happen, we have to deal with the ramifications of this for years to come. The GOP will use it as a rallying cry to get their base mobilized and it will cost us election after election. Maybe we concede winning an election again for the next 20 years, just to say we tried to impeach, but I don't think so. The Republicans are foaming at the mouth to allow us to impeach, because they know they can use it as a scare tactic to deter voters from the Democratic message. You want to impeach just for the sake of impeaching, even though anyone with a hint of knowledge would know that doing so would ultimately not end in the removal of Pres. Bush. This is my opinion and if you don't agree with it, fine. But you've not given me any evidence to suggest that the Democrats COULD impeach and that the American people would go along with it.

In a dream world we would be able to impeach and have the full backing of the American people. But right now that doesn't appear to be the case. Without American backing and knowing the challenges it brings, I can see why they took impeachment off the table. It's about 2008 and the Democrats know that if they lose that election, we're in more shit than we probably were under Bush.

[pat_k]

36. Still no factual or logical basis provided. . .

. . .for your predictions. Still not a single direct response to, or counter-argument against, any point in my posts. Still no acknowledgment of the moral imperative. (Or case that it is not a moral imperative).

Reminds me of Monty Python's http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm">"Argument" sketch

. . .
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look. . .

And BTW, the American people are WAY ahead of Congress. Despite the beltway's relentless attempts to suppress calls for impeachment; despite the wall of pretense that it can't/won't/shouldn't happen designed to keep the American people from calling for impeachment, http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">a majority wanted impeachment to be a priority. And an even http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2753090">larger majority want Bush's presidency over now. (Both polls cited above as part of the case -- a couple of the factual points you have not acknowledged or responded to.)

And, even if the public support wasn't there, finding a parade and jumping in front of it is not leadership. Americans disdain such "leaders." They disdain "leaders" who risk nothing to fight for what's right. Refusing to stand and fight for principle, win or lose, is cowardice and the American people know it.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. Well A) she doesn't have the votes.

And B) Democrats probably remember what happened to the GOP when they impeached Clinton. It nearly ruined their party, though they weathered the storm. I've not seen many polls (not online polls mind you) that indicate the general public supports impeachment. Even if only 40% supported impeachment, that is still a very low number when you look at trying to remove a president from office.

[Hulk]

3. Live a life of disgrace and shame...

I guess the only satisfaction I will have over this sack of human waste is to know that he will live the rest of his days in disgrace. He can't ignore the irate voices that accuse him of the responsibility he has garnered from his reign of crime. It may not penetrate his thick numb skull, but it will surround him the rest of his days. And then...he will burn in hell eternally...if we buy into that story.

[yurbud]

5. shame and guilt don't penetrate his psyche--but failure does

I would like to be able to ask him if it bothers him that his dad will be remembered as at least an average president whereas he will be remembered as the hands down worst and the only one people feared would destroy our democracy and the country itself (Lincoln had a little help from the South during the Civil War).

[ginnyinWI]

7. his legacy is shot, that's for sure.

He's brought disgrace to his family--and family loyalty means a lot to them. But better than that is that his name will be always associated with failure, incompetence, and corruption.

It's not that he's dumb, it's that he's really good at living in a state of denial. Is that something alcoholics are good at?

[yurbud]

9. you can't feel anything when you blackout and scrape your face on the carpet

at least not until you come to.

[pat_k]

13. Screw Bush's fate, impeachment is about us.

It's about rescuing our Constitution and redeeming our self-esteem as Americans.

If we can't wake up Nancy "off the table" Pelosi and Harry "we'll get Cheney" Reid soon, they will suffer the sad fate of being disdained as so-called "leaders" who held the power to rescue the USA from "the decider" in their hands, but who, instead of wielding that power to call their colleagues and the nation to action, abused the power of their offices to put down any move toward impeachment.

Let's hope we can save them from themselves and make impeachment a reality. If we can't, they will suffer their own personal hell for their failure, and the price our nation will pay could be unimaginable.

[yellerpup]

6. Well done, yurbud.

K&R! :kick:

[guruoo]

8. #6

K&R

[pat_k]

10. Kick & Rec!

[helderheid]

19. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours