Feingold: They've Committed Impeachable Offenses, Do Not Impeach Them

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23561

Feingold: They've Committed Impeachable Offenses, Do Not Impeach Them
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2007-06-12 13:28. Impeachment

Feingold still fighting to end war
By Brian Gray, Monroe Times (WI)

snip//

She asked Feingold if it would be possible to court martial Bush because he's commander in chief.

"I don't think so," Feingold replied as several people laughed. "It pains me to say that we shouldn't impeach them because I think they've committed impeachable acts."

He said he understands how people feel and sympathizes with those who suggest impeachment, but said it's not likely to happen.

"We don't have the votes for a conviction," he said.

He also said the impeachment process would take too much time away from other pressing issues.

"During President Clinton's impeachment, we were in our seats from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday," he said. "I'm not complaining about how much work was involved, but it didn't leave time for anything else."

One member in the audience said it didn't matter how much time an impeachment took.

"I want my Constitution back, and if that means slowing things down for six, months I'm for it," she said.

more...

[Lars39]

1. Feingold and the others don't understand how we feel,

or they would understand that if we do not get rid of these criminals in a peaceful manner set out by the Constitution, then that leaves us no choice but revolution. It may not happen soon, but it will happen if our elected leaders do not represent us and do what needs to be done.

[aquart]

3. Yes, dear. That's nice.

[Lars39]

5. Why the snark?

:shrug:

[leeroysphitz]

52. Understand or care? nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. "that leaves us no choice but revolution"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Oh the drama. Cracks me up!

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

2. I understand what he's saying.

But if we let them finish their terms of office, then the power they have illegally amassed passes INTACT to the next president. I wouldn't give ANY human being that much power. And I notice that not one of our otherwise fine Democratic candidates has mentioned undoing any of that power grab.

I don't want a Democratic tyrant any more than I want a Republican one. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Do you think the amassed power issue might be a way to sell impeachment to the Republicans? Or can't any of them think that far ahead?

[Dhalgren]

12. That is one of the "problems" I have had with this whole "Unitary Executive"

idea that Bush/republicans have been pushing for six years. Do they not care who the President is, just that the President must have near dictatorial power? The way that the Republicans fought, and confronted Clinton the whole time he was in office does not seem to jibe with the Republican push for the all-powerful President. This is what has led me to believe that the republicans were not planning on a Democrat EVER becoming President. But then that makes no sense, unless they know something that we don't know.

"Do you think the amassed power issue might be a way to sell impeachment to the Republicans? Or can't any of them think that far ahead?"

That, my friend, is a damned good question...

[annabanana]

69. The voting problems that kept us out in '04. .that we BARELY squeaked by

in '06 are still out there. We will have to have an actual plurality of probably 60-70% at the polls to keep them from routing us in '08. ..

Not nearly enough is being done to get those mechanics under control.

[aquart]

82. Remember? The Democrats were supposed to be a permanent minority?

No matter how the American people voted, the Republicans would always win.

[mikelgb]

22. Dennis Kucinich

would repeal Patriot Act on his first day in office

[leeroysphitz]

51. How? nt

[MonkeyFunk]

63. How would he do that?

Seriously, the Kucinichites seem to have no concept of how government works. A President can't just repeal a law.

[mikelgb]

72. I know that

I am not an ignoramus and I perhaps should have said "he would work toward" overturning it on his first day:

BLITZER: Congressman Kucinich, you voted against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced. You've since voted again against it. But some would say yesterday's plot that was described by the FBI underscores the need for precisely that kind of tough measure to deal with potential terrorists out there.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D) OHIO: Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up their essential liberties to achieve a sense of security deserve neither.

The Patriot Act has undermined civil rights in this country. And as president of the United States, one of my first acts in office will be to move forward to have the Justice Department overturn the Patriot Act as unconstitutional.

We have to remember that 9/11 led us down a cul de sac. Americans need to reconnect with our deepest sense of self here, Wolf. We have to remember that, you know, the courage that it took to form this country is still within us.

And I want to have what I call the 9/10 forum to recreate -- help us reconnect with the deeper sense of who we are as Americans.

I realize he can't simply real by mandate. But fer christ sakes look at all the latitude * is given to legislate.... of course any Dem attempts to wield a little power will be met with stalwart repub opposition and outcry.

[MonkeyFunk]

95. And how does the Justice Department

overturn a law?

The Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional, or he can ask Congress to repeal it. The Justice Department doesn't get to overturn laws.

[ProfessorGAC]

111. I Believe It Can Be "De-Emphasized"

I would think the prez could tell his AG not to use of any of the expanded powers of the PatAct. I would think that would be a de facto repeal, even though the law is still on the books. And, it wouldn't be an abrogation of duty, since the laws would still be enforced, just without the expanded powers.
GAC

[EFerrari]

42. A judge just had to tell Bush that he can't throw American citizens

in jail for no reason and throw away the key. Russ is wrong and I still like him more than just about any other Senate Democrat.

[still_one]

4. Feingold and Gore are both wrong. If you believe they commited impeachable crimes

and then say it would waste to much time for other issues, and they don't have the votes, what kind of message is that?

Pelosi says impeachment is off the table

So the message being sent, not only to this administration, but any administration, YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW?

[bryant69]

6. What message would a failed impeachment attempt send?

Would impeachment succeed in removing President Bush (and Cheney)?

And what kind of message would it send if it fizzled out?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[AndyA]

17. And what message are we sending if we don't impeach?

We tell them, the world, and all who follow that it doesn't matter. Make up your own rules. Break the law. Violate your oath of office. Piss on the Constitution. Take away our rights.

It's OK. Nothing will come of it.

There might be someone far, far worse than Bush/Cheney/Rove waiting in the wings. That's why we must impeach.

[bryant69]

19. That makes sense too

I don't know - I can see both sides of it; and generally come down on our leaders side.

Cause isn't the message of a failed impeachment "Just keep tight party control and you got nothing to worry about?"

Bryant

[AndyA]

26. I understand that stance the Dem leaders have taken, but I think things will change

down the road, as we get closer to the elections in 2008.

Think about it: They might not have the votes right now, but there are many, many investigations underway. You know that there are going to be more scandals revealed, and more allegations of wrong doing on the part of the GOP leaders.

Public sentiment, which is already at a very angry/disgusted stage, will continue to deteriorate. The Republicans who are going to run for re-election in 2008 will see that they are on a sinking ship, and will have to cross over and side with the Dems. How low will Bush/Cheney be in the polls by 2008? More dead soldiers, more lies revealed, more corruption, etc.

We may not have the votes right now, but I believe the picture a year from now will be very, very different. We will be gearing up for a big election in a matter of months, and no one on the GOP side is going to be backing Bush/Cheney at that point. It would be political suicide if they did, and they know it.

And what could be even worse would be if the Republicans themselves started impeachment against Bush/Cheney to save their own skins. It's pretty obvious Bush isn't doing much to help the party at this point, and he doesn't really have to since his political career is over. It's only a matter of time before the Repukes turn on their leaders to save their own skin.

Just my opinion, but I think the Dems have more to lose by allowing this to continue, rather than attempt to put a stop to it. People are sick of politics, corruption, and lies now. The Dems should be smart enough to understand that, but I fear they aren't, even though corruption was a big issue during last year's elections.

[warren pease]

36. It's too late to bother about "having the votes to convict..."

It's become a Constitutional crisis for the ages; a graduate course on media manipulation and uses of other propaganda tools and methods to control opposition "leaders" by controlling their constituencies; a case study in the failure of the two-party system and the need for proportional representation in this country; an enthusiastic kick in the ass to Karl Rove and all he stands for -- if anything but his lust for Bushie; another kick in the ass to all those arrogant bastards who simply refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas and further refused to be put under oath...

I have a feeling that if the American people were actually allowed to hear even a partial list of the outrages perpetrated in their names with their tax dollars, the votes to convict would miraculously show up in the form of ass-chewed GOP Senators whose states have told them to vote for conviction or look for another job next election. And impeachment, even if ultimately unsuccessful, addresses three key issues that won't be dealt with any other way:


- There must be accountability for running a pure rogue state, starting with grand theft election (two counts); shoving the Constitution through the shredder; invading a sovereign nation on phony intel; permitting the single worst act of terrorism on their watch, and with -- best evidence suggests -- their complicity; torturing disposable little brown people in off-shore hell-holes using taxpayer-funded sadists; outing a covert CIA operative who was actually working on tracking WMDs in real terrorist networks (unlike the bullshit they pawned off about Saddam); putting cronies in key positions, where many survived long enough to do serious damage ala "Great job, Brownie" and his inspired leadership during the Katrina disaster; willful environmental destruction by a) giving tax breaks to Hummer buyers, b) refusing to sign any international treaty or protocol that would "compromise" the American lifestyle by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, c) screwing up the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, eliminating nearly all EPA oversight and enforcement, and d) gagging NOAA's leading climatologists lest they speak of the human causes of global climate change. And that's just a small, random sample of their high crimes and treasonous policies.

Their idiotic incompetence goes back even further, to when they were taking delivery on several hundred pieces of a P-3 Orion they had been using to run surveillance ops on China, even back to that great day in the Pacific when they let one of their obscenely rich "contributors" take the wheel on a nuclear submarine, surfacing directly under a Japanese fishing boat and killing the first of perhaps a million disposable brown people.


- There must be precedent set through the impeachment of this truly awful pack of thieves and traitors, lest future megalomaniacal fascists get the idea that they can get away with this shit, too. And that message is already out there load and clear to any power-mad fascist (an oxymoron?) with money, an organization and the desire to rule by truncheon and torture -- or by exportation to the detention camps of the American gulag for a little political re-education.


- It keeps them busy with legal matters when they would otherwise be spending their time as they usually do: figuring out new and ever-more damaging ways to screw up the country and the rest of the planet. I'd rather see these mass murders sweating over the latest evidence disclosure all night with their $4,000 a day lawyers on the edge of panic, than think of them giggling over the latest propaganda coup, the latest oil contract for Iraqi oil signed and ready for Exxon/Mobil/Standard/Chevron/Shell/BP/Amoco/Arco/Unocal and a few others still in the game as independents, the latest software from the fine engineers at Diebold, which virtually guarantees that a new undetectable, untraceable, unfixable vote-flipping bug will ship in time for the 2008 elections.


Now isn't that worth the effort, Ms. "off the table," Mr. "no time for distractions," Ms. "not in the best interestes of the American people." How about we decide about our own best interests and just go do your damn job -- which is exactly, as your employers, what we say it is.



wp

[bryant69]

41. OK OK I'll go start impeachment proceedings immediately

Wait - damn, I'm a management analyst in Florida not a Senator. I can't actually start impeachment proceedings.

Seriously you certainly seem sure of your course of action, and I certainly agree with you and Fiengold that this president has done things worthy of impeachment. On the other hand I find the idea that Congressional Republicans would be moved to vote for impeachment and conviction to be a bit of wishful thinking. Rather I think this would shift the battleground back to Democrats vs. Republicans, and as we saw with the AG vote yesterday, there's enough party loyalty to keep them on the Bush side of the fence.

Bryant

[warren pease]

59. Well, you may be right...

I'm pretty sure of my course of action, if for no other reason than what they're currently doing isn't working -- with voters, with doing their jobs, with getting reelected next year, along with a Dem administration.

They're rapidly getting the same rep they had last time they (sort of) ran the show -- spineless lizards who run screaming from any confrontation, cave at every opportunity to the enforcers from the white house, and they've even been seen to gloat about how they conned the people into voting for Iraq withdrawal and corruption investigations at home, when what they had actually voted for was just a kinder, gentler faction of the Business Party. Same agenda as the GOP, but with a friendly smile and a wave as they send you down the dusty road to privatization and bankruptcy.

I'm certain GOP senators wouldn't be "moved" to vote for impeachment out of any vestigial sense of honor or duty, since those virtues clearly don't exist any more on the right side of the aisle. But I think they could be pressured by moderate GOP constituents who see impeachment hearing coverage every day and night on TeeVee, repeatedly read or hear the charges every day in the paper or on the TV news, and eventually tumble to the fact that the Democrats aren't making this shit up.

Anyway, if they're going to pretend they have no time to do the one thing that might keep BushCo from using its final months to make sure there are no final months, fine. Personally, I'll work hard and even donate a bit to whoever challenges my very own Vichy Dem in next year's primary. If that fails, I may just stay home for the first time in memory.


wp

[still_one]

66. Then our Democracy is broken. Nixon should NOT have been pardoned

we deserve exactly the people that represent us


As a side note, when the Democrats took over Congress they had about a 35% approval rating, now it is in the mid twenties

[still_one]

64. Exactly, otherwise our Constitution is irrelevent

[JBear]

24. The message it would send...

is to put into the public record findings of impeachable offenses of this presidency. It would force the investigations into the news. It would force the findings of fact to be reported to the moron masses in this country. Someone might just wake up and pay attention...then again...

:bounce:

[still_one]

60. It would send a strong message no matter what

What you are implying is if you don't have the votes you shouldn't impeach

What I am saying is that you MUST follow what the founders of our Constitution required the Congress to do, and that is impeach if serious crimes and misdeamenors were done. THEY WERE DONE

And it should be brought to the full attention of the country, what they have done, and the only way to do this is impeachment

If it loses, then at least we know which people accepted the crimes and misdeaminors as ok, and those who did not

To ignore it, is to condone it, and not do your job as a congress person

[O.M.B.inOhio]

8. yes, and also put criminal enablers on the record if they think the pres. is above the law.

[Ezlivin]

7. I can't wait to meet a police officer who is too busy with other crime to issue me a speeding ticket

No matter how busy my police department is they always have time to issue traffic citations.

Hell, there is murder and mayhem all around! How can they take time away from those pressing cases to worry about me speeding?

The last few years the Congress has been "busy" with worrying over homosexuals' impact on marriage, keeping the flag fireproof and jamming hundreds of earmarks into bills.

I guess they don't have time for Constitutional crimes.

[KansDem]

29. Good point...

"...a police officer who is too busy with other crime to issue me a speeding ticket."

I might go one further and offer this: when issued a speeding ticket, don't show up on the court date. Then when the police haul me before the judge who asks why I didn't show up, I'd say "Your Honor, I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict."

[Ezlivin]

34. And, when pressed, offer "I can't recall"

Evidently you see the same crimes I am seeing.

It is simply amazing that they are able to get away with this. We should be so lucky.

[emmadoggy]

100. Actually, I think it's the other way around...

More like the cops (ie. Congress) are so busy passing out speeding tickets that they just let the murderers run free. No time to actually chase them down, catch them, arrest them, prosecute them etc. No, we have so much other minutiae to attend to - no time for the BIG stuff! That's the way Congress seems to be acting here.

Sure, we have a lot of domestic and foreign issues that need SERIOUS attention, but if our democracy and Constitution are toast, and we allow our leaders to run roughshod over the law, what does any of the rest of it matter?? Besides, how much really worthwhile stuff are they going to get through anyway in the next year or two? They can't get veto-proof numbers so shrub just shoots it back down anyway. And any laws that Congress does pass, this administration just seems to find a way to circumvent anyway.

Time to throw down the guantlet and IMPEACH THE BASTARDS ALREADY!!! Win or lose, STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT! Truth, justice and the rule of law!

:rant:

[The Stranger]

9. That "member in the audience" made Russ look like a total fucking moron.

So well struck.

[Roland99]

11. That one member in the audience is the voice of the majority of America!

[kath]

10. I want my Constitution back, too, dammit.

When the Constitution is being trampled on the way it has been by this group of thugs, it is the sworn DUTY of the Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. Doesn't matter what they think the vote will be - start the proceedings in order to investigate and bring all the evil doings to the light of day, then it should be evident that the process must continue.

They all take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution - we must demand that they honor that oath.

[Octafish]

75. I'm with you, kath.

As a citizen, it's my duty to uphold, defend and protect the same Constitution Bush and his cronies are working so determinedly to destroy.

[grytpype]

13. "We don' t have the votes to convict."

You are not going to see Bush or Cheney impeached.

You are not going to see all the troops miracled home this afternoon.

Go cry about it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. Don't they get it? It doesn't matter if Impeachment isn't successful. To have hearings etc

will allow the American people know just how criminal these people are. It is also their DUTY to uphold the Constitution and pursue Impeachment. They are all afraid for their Political asses.

[LibDemAlways]

31. By not conducting impeachment hearings, the

Dems convey the impression that there's no reason to impeach the bastards. Lying the country into an illegal war? Illegal surveillance and wiretaps? Torture? Subverting the election process? Apparently those don't qualify.

Too bad chimp and Cheney haven't been caught administering blow jobs to anybody. That just might get Congress off its collective fat ass and provide the impetus to start investigations.

[Norquist Nemesis]

Wonderful. I guess the local District Attorneys shouldn't bring charges

against a certain type of criminal because they're are too many pressing issues with other criminals, too! And the cops should just look the other way because there are too many other places they're being called to.

Fuck it! Let's all just move ahead. And when the next President elected is a Democrat, every single Republican that opens his/her mouth with even the slightest hint of criticsm gets a big whopping sock in it. The precedent will be set and they'll have only themselves to blame.

[TwilightGardener]

23. If we have a Dem elected to the WH, the Repubs will be just as relentless

as in the Clinton years--we stay soft little teabags, they run us over with hardball politics--we will get nothing for letting the Chimp and Shooter off the hook. Nothing. "Fair play" is not in the GOP handbook.

[LibDemAlways]

28. You've got that right. Repukes go for the

jugular. They didn't have the votes to convict Clinton, but that sure as hell didn't stop them. They had no legitimate grounds for impeachment in the first place, and that didn't stop them either. And when it looked like the 2000 and 2004 elections were going to be close, they stole them both.

When will the D's wake up and realize they are up against crooks, liars, and thieves who will do anything to gain an advantage?

[Norquist Nemesis]

35. They didn't have the votes, but they had Lieberman

and apparently still do! (How/why Gore ever calculated that he should be the VP is beyond me.)

But, you're absolutely spot on. They didn't have the votes and it didn't stop them. They didn't even have public opinion and it didn't stop them!

[Hippo_Tron]

103. Clinton's approval rating went up 10 points because of the impeachment

And the Republicans came within 5 seats of losing the House in 1998, a year that they were expected to make huge gains because of the Clinton scandal.

Americans may have not liked Clinton's blowjob but they liked the people attacking Clinton even less.

[LibDemAlways]

105. Point well taken. However, I believe that the Dems have

a very legitimate impeachment case and no good reason not to pursue it.

[Norquist Nemesis]

33. No doubts about that! n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

101. The local district attorneys get an impartial jury

None of the 49 Republicans in the US Senate are impartial.

[JHB]

15. Vicious Cycle 101

"We can't take action because we don't have enough support"
"We don't have enough support because they know we won't take action"

Who's going to back the guy who rolls over in every fight without even trying?


This isn't the Clinton thing built out of horseshit charges. These are real matters that threaten our constitutional system.

[MrPrax]

16. "from other pressing issues"?

Like what? Isn't the downside of using the 'we don't have the votes for "fill in the blank" issue' more or less binding on other issues?

This canard of 'votes' is merely window dressing for the fact that the 'democrats' will never have enough votes if they elect Republicans that don't share their values. Any 'good' vote will have to counteract a 'bad' vote anyhow -- so it doesn't really matter what the other issues are...any and all Progressive issues will be opposed, defeated or ignored.

I guess Feingold has signed up for the Holy War as well...

[PeaceNikki]

37. Well, he is busy trying to restore Habeas Corpus, ensuring

Veterans and Servicemembers receive quality care, oh... and I think he's been trying really hard to help end the war.

[WinkyDink]

39. And without BUSH, it would go a lot more smoothly.

[PeaceNikki]

40. But.... unsucessful impeachment hearings wouldn't help so much either.

That's his point.

[WinkyDink]

47. Hearings just might serve to WAKE UP THE CITIZENRY. Feingold has no crystal ball.

[PeaceNikki]

48. N, he hasno crystal ball, but he has a shitload more experience that you do.

From which he speaks.

[Occulus]

54. But his "experience" also includes the Clinton years

during which Republicans pursued a completely unfounded impeachment trial for which they did not have the votes to convict.

Clinton's approval ratings with the public, during that time, rose- chiefly because the public knew the charges set forth by the Republicans were bogus, and because Clinton was popular to begin with when the trial started.

Compare and contrast that situation, that chain of events, and those impeachment articles, with what the * administration has wrought thus far. What do you think a very public, very theatrical presentation of his articles of impeachment would do to his approval ratings with the public? It sits at something like 25-28% at the moment. Would we see teens by the end, once the public truly understands the scope and depth of the * administration's crimes? Single digits, perhaps?

Experience counts for exactly nothing if it is not applied correctly.The most experienced people on the planet in their respective fields are nonetheless occasionally wrong, and I know I speak in the same tone as a good many people, both here at DU and "out there", when I say I think he's just plain wrong in this case.

[mondo joe]

43. But since they can't get the votes to put Bush out of office that's not relevant.

[WinkyDink]

49. Nixon's own men (e.g., Scott from PA.) wouldn't budge---UNTIL THE HEARINGS brought out the evidence.

Please. People, even troglodyte Republicans, WILL change, if their own future (Read: Next election) depends on it. Bush doesn't supercede THAT.

But the writing needs to be on the wall. That means HEARINGS.

[springhill]

57. Exactly right WinkyDink!

Until certain details came out at the IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS they did not have the votes against Nixon either. And what in God's name are we telling our future presidents? That they can get away with anything, and if we don't empeach, they probably can. This sets a terrible precident. All a president will have to say is, that's what Bush did, and that is that. If it's okay for him, it's okay for me. How will we ever control this in the future if we don't act now? I'm sorry, but this is just too important to let slide. They have violated the law over and over again, and continue to do so while flouting the constitution, the courts and the people.

[truedelphi]

99. Impeachment

Impeachment

Impeachment

It means that a President is held accountable

That a Vice President is held accountable

That the Attorney General is held Accountable

it means that the Constitution would be meaningful again

[Solly Mack]

18. ah...but just think of all those talking points to rally the people

a rallying cry to bring people in and allow them to vent and feel good about their venting - to have someone else that knows how they're feeling and understands! Oh, how Americans will come out against Bush and the republicans because of all those rallying points!

Bush is corrupt! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush is a liar! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush is a thug! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush has engaged in impeachable offenses! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush is a criminal! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush lied us into war! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush spied on Americans! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush violated the Constitution! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush abused the powers of office! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)



Bush walks free! (and the crowd wonders why)

but that's OK because

Bush is corrupt! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush is a liar! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush is a thug! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush has engaged in impeachable offenses! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush is a criminal! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush lied us into war! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush spied on Americans! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush violated the Constitution! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)
Bush abused the powers of office! (and the crowd goes wild and cheers)

[earthside]

20. It's Depressing.

I am actually beginning to feel like Bush is on the "come back trail."

Something seems so wrong ... why is it that everything the Democrats do in Congress ends up having this limp, impotent odor to it?

Is it because they are not bold enough?

Is it because of the implications of Feingold's statement that "... the impeachment process would take too much time away from other pressing issues"? What other "pressing issues" are the Democrats pushing that will actually become law?

Yeah, I think Bush wins as all bullies do when they are not boldly and aggressively challenged -- and too many of the Dems in Congress are still not even using strong language to take-on Bush and the RADICAL Republicans.

I just don't get it ...

[peace13]

21. When will the world save us from ourselves?

Can't they see that we have been taken hostage?

[xchrom]

25. there are those who are worse than bushco -- taking notes, learning -- waiting

to take the reigns of power.

a unified democratic party -- unwilling to exact a price for the pain 6+ plus years of what the gop has delivered to them -- is nothing but a profound failure.

[LibDemAlways]

27. How long will it take before the r's impeach the

next Democratic President? Will the ink have had time to dry on the inauguration speech? Will the last inaugural ball partygoer have made it home?

They will waste no time and they will not give a rat's ass about "other pressing issues." That will be the pressing issue. Whether or not they'll have the votes to convict makes no difference. With them it's just a ploy to damage a Democratic President politically and derail his/her agenda.

[madrchsod]

30. the reality is--there is`t enough time

and there is not enough votes to impeach. this is`t the same republican party that told nixon there were enough votes to impeach him..

[deminks]

32. Nixon wasn't impeached, the hearings destroyed him.

He might have finally been impeached if he stayed. The one thing we can do is have hearings. We can subpeona. What other pressing issues are they doing anything about?
America needs to have some witnesses up there telling them the truth about their liar in chief, how he cooked the intelligence to go to war, how he cares for oil and nothing else, how the war on terra turned into a bumper sticker, how he stole our ability to pay respect to 3500+ soldiers who have died by hiding them from view, how he stole recovery from countless thousands of soldiers injured in the "wars", how he destroyed the fourth estate, how he stole our liberty, how he stole and suppressed our vote, how he has destroyed the judicial system.

Our only recourse if not Congress is the Hague. Will the world do what we cannot seem to do?

[WinkyDink]

38. I understand his point, also. But TOTALLY DISAGREE. There is NOTHING "more pressing"

than getting rid of these WAR-MONGERING, FASCISTIC, THIEVING TRAITORS! PERIOD.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. WE HAVE TO STOP THEM!!

If we had impeached Nixon, we wouldn't have had Cheney and Rumsfeld continue in positions of power. If we don't impeach bush and cheney, Monica Goodling will be our VP in 30 years.

[bdamomma]

97. this is so BS, we have criminal killers in the government and

they are worried that they won't have enough votes, someone or somebody has to stand up against these thugs, or they will just take us down with them......sigh.

[Johonny]

45. You have to impeach them

At this point I don't care if they have the votes or not. You have to go on record for standing for America and the constitution or not. I want to know who is and isn't for America in this Congress.

[OneBlueSky]

46. "impeachment process would take too much time away from other pressing issues" . . .

um . . . exactly what other "pressing issues" is this Congress actually doing anything about? . . . global warming? . . . ending the war? . . . the energy crisis? . . . healthcare? . . .

might as well spend their time working on impeachment . . . at least they'd be doing something productive . . .

[Supersedeas]

50. No time for Justice....so, carefully consider the priorities...

[kenny blankenship]

53. Most people aren't aware -now- of all the impeachable shit Bushco has been up to

or they don't understand it in detail, and probably have forgotten half of what they once knew. The impeachment proceedings would make them aware of the depth of Bush's criminality, and impeachment proceedings are the only way we have to make them aware.

The corporate media prefers to ignore the patent illegality of Bush's surveillance regime, his illegal lying to Congress to start illegal wars, they ignore the massive abuse of Constitutional powers separation in Bush's signing statements spree. The media ignores all of this as much as possible for a very good reason: Bush and the media are simply 2 aspects of the same oligarchy. But the media cannot ignore impeachment proceedings. They are drawn to bloodsport spectacles like moths to a candle. Despite themselves, the media would be forced to relate the story of what Bushco has done, to read out the long list of laws and Constitutional principles Bush has violated, and make the people aware that their country is in crisis.

If the people are lulled into a sleepy acceptance of Bush's New Regime, and the new American way of doing old fascist things, you all know it will not end with Bush. Take a good look at the Republican Presidential candidates. Bush didn't have a monopoly in his party on cyclopean religious bigotry, lust for dictatorial power, racist jingoism, or sheer sociopathic lying greed. There's plenty worse to follow Bush when he's gone. If the Democrats join with the media in convincing the people that our current situation is the new normal, and there's nothing wrong with a dictatorship and 24x7 police surveillance state, where elections can be routinely fixed, where people can disappear into government custody and never be heard from again, then the Democrats will be to blame for the dictatorship and what follows. Bush may have committed grave crimes against the Constitution but the Democrats through their laziness and timorous refusal to resist will have made his crimes permanent. They will institutionalize fascism in ways a man so mentally disorganized and chaotically egocentric as Bush never could have managed on his own. They may as well rename this country Bushlandia.

"Oh but we'll fail! We don't dare because the GOP will block us and we'll fail." Fine let the Republicans show the world that they stand for snarling Fascism, illegal aggression and mass murder, for the destruction of democracy at home and genocide abroad. If they think that's good for them, they should be given the opportunity to put on their swastika armbands in front of the cameras like honest Nazis. They may stop the conviction of Bush, and they may pay a political price for doing so (or not). They may stop us, that's true. But what kind of world do you think you're going to be living in if you don't at least try to stop them?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. He's Right; Of Course. He's Smart, He's Rational And He's Logical.

That makes his opinion carry some legitimacy, so I feel comfort in my agreement with him.

[BuyingThyme]

61. Taking time away from immigration and Iraq would be a good thing, Senator.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. Feingold's a smart guy

[PeaceNikki]

67. Exactly. I trust him. If he felt there were a snowball's chance in hell,

he'd be ALL over it. It's not like the man wouldn't love to see it happen.

[ejbr]

87. Smart enough to appreciate how leaving Bush unscathed welcomes future tyrants?

votes or no votes, to dissuade future presidents from this bullshit should be of some serious concern, no?

[MonkeyFunk]

96. Because Bush would not be scathed

by a failure to convict - in fact, he'd probably get a boost from it.

[ejbr]

110. Yet, would future presidents risk being unscathed, knowing Impeachment was ON the table?

The transformation of our constitution into something unrecognizable should be fought, with or without the votes, whether Bush is scathed or unscathed. Doing what's right is doing what's right, even if by doing so pushes Bush's approval back into the 80s. What type of world will we be leaving for future generations if we just throw up our hands and surrender our constitution because the majority is blind to its violation? What then will they choose to ignore? Isn't there some saying about evil thriving because good men (people) do nothing?

Will the possibility of impeachment finally get Bush to pull his head out of his ass and work for the good of the country as he should have been doing from the beginning? Will the mainstream media stop licking his ass and begin to ask the tough questions, to Democrats in particular, on how the possibility of impeachment even came to be? We have nothing to lose. Bush refuses to listen, Congress refuses to see themselves as an equal branch of govt. And we all know things will only get worse with these assholes doing as they wish with no accountability, including the unlikely prospect of impeachment.

He has violated the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth articles of the Bill of rights, the Fourth Amendment and ratified treaties. His signing statements violate hundreds of laws.He has committed war crimes.

Pray tell, what will it take for good people to act against his transgressions?

[RestoreGore]

65. We don't have time for the Constitution

Funny, but I always thought that WAS what was most important.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. impeachment

isn't an obligation.

Feingold's entirely correct - it would be a waste of time.

[RestoreGore]

70. And take them away from what?

Doing NOTHING anyway? Don't wonder now why many Americans are totally disillusioned with this process. We haven't seen it actually WORK in quite some time.

[Zodiak]

77. Actually they are doing plenty

they are writing new fast track authority for Bush and gettting more free trade deals, they are writing sweeping immigration reform to start a slave-wage class here in the US, they are writing earmarks like crazy, and let;s not forget the war with Iran and the oil law in Iraq.

THOSE are the important issues for which we are not getting impeeachment.

"We can't impeach Bush because we are writing legislation for our corporate donors" is a FAR more accurate statement.

[RestoreGore]

78. yes, I should have clarified to state, doing NOTHING for the people

To me a lame excuse to forego what our Founding Fathers would not hesitate to do. I am absolutely disgusted.

[bdamomma]

98. and that Constitution is what they pledged to protect,

the most "pressuring issue" is to throw these bums out. Why won't they listen to us???

[fooj]

71. If we don't have the votes for a conviction...

then we need to hold EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Repubs that are OBSTRUCTING that vote ACCOUNTABLE. I'm sick and f*cking tired of the entire planet waiting for the Dems to do something to get us out of this mess when it is the Repubs who created this monster in the first place. F*ck!!!

[Gregorian]

73. Impeachment would slow THEM down. That's why I'm for it.

And it's not for the people in the US as much as for those on the business end of our guns and bombs. Impeach for the Iraqis.

It would tie Bush's hands.

[LibDemAlways]

76. Absolutely, And it would be entirely legitimate. The

list of impeachable offenses is long. Not impeaching these bastards demonstrates complete disregard for the Constitution. That remedy was put in there just for situations like this. So the repukes abused it against Clinton. So what? That doesn't invalidate the process.

There's nothing in the Constitution that indicates impeachment shouldn't go forward because of the possibility of an acquittal. Hell, if the legal system in this country operated that way, we'd have to shut it down entirely.

"Your honor. There's a chance Mr. Manson might be found not guilty. I don't think we should charge him."

I respect Feingold, but I think he's wrong on this one.

[Gregorian]

80. Why did we try Libby if we knew Bush would pardon him.

This is ridiculous. The fascists are going to grow and grow until we stand up to them.

But frankly, after the war resolution passed, we all knew Congress was no longer representing us.

[electropop]

86. Either you're an impeacher or an enabler.

Each member of Congress needs to choose.

[PeaceNikki]

90. You're either with us or against us, huh? Gosh... where have I heard THAT before???

[electropop]

93. Oops.

However, in this case I think there's a bit more truth to it. I'm not using the dualism to justify the theft of our Constitutional rights (and everything else we own), but rather a restoration.

Every member of Congress (reps and senators) takes an oath which begins:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

When this nation is faced with the most dangerous domestic enemy of the Constitution in our history, those who have taken the oath literally are "with us or against us."

[Raksha]

107. Maybe we should say, "Impeach for the Iranians"?

I have to admit the thought has crossed my mind more than once.

[LibDemAlways]

74. I am going to bookmark this thread and e-mail it to

Sen. Feingold the moment the republicans begin impeachment proceedings against the next Democratic President. I anticipate that will be a few minutes after he/she takes the oath of office. What Dem politicians don't understand is that the r's don't even need a reason to act. They do everything in their power and then some to make the Presidency a living hell for anyone with a D after his/her name. What they did to Clinton was just a warm up for the next time.

Meanwhile, the criminal cabal now in power can get away with anything because the Dems "don't have the votes." Never heard any of the r's talking that way when it came to Clinton.

[firefox_fan]

79. The argument is:

It's hard work to ensure the Constitution is kept in place. So, forget about it. Even with all the bribes and back room deals, Congresspeople are not paid enough to work that hard. Damn, 8 hours a day for 6 days a week! I'm sure almost everybody who'd employed here at DU works more than that routinely for half the pay.

[Pacifist Patriot]

81. Bullshit

Sorry, that's all I have left. I've laid out my reasons why impeachment is not only necessary but imperative. I'm done. All the arguments I've heard against it don't hold water. This is bullshit.

A country that can impeach Johnson because he dismissed War Secretary Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act and impeach Clinton because he committed perjury regarding a blow job can impeach the Bush Administration for:

Unconstitutional and illegal signing statements
Warrantless wiretapping
Lying to take the country to war
Abandoning Gulf Coast to the ravages of Katrina
Outing a covert CIA agent

Bull fucking shit. That's all I have to say.

[Ino]

83. Et tu, Feingold?

They can't do ANYTHING -- can't defund the war, can't fund stem cell research, can't even pass nonbinding bullshit, etc. -- they don't have the votes (whine). What pressing issues WILL they be able to take care of?! What's the point of all the investigations when nothing comes of them? What's the point of having laws? I'm so disgusted with this lot. I used to hate it when others here would criticize Dems, but now I'm doing it too.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

84. Sometimes, being a "realist" is just, plain damning,...to everyone.

If those who have taken an oath as representatives of nation's people aren't AT LEAST charged with the crimes overwhelming evidence shows have been committed, then we can no longer claim to be either a democratic institution or a nation of laws rather than men.

Moreover, what message is being sent here and abroad,...to our children and to peoples around the earth? I'll tell you what the message is: the law only applies to common folk, not the wealthy or powerful. Moreover, why should people continue to care about whether or not they are breaking laws when their own government can do whatever the hell it wants to?

I HUGELY admire both Gore and Feingold. However, their "realism" damns us all. Their "realism" is disempowering because it's dependent upon outcome rather than process, the process of a land of laws and a nation becoming of being called a "democracy".

[Pacifist Patriot]

89. "dependent upon outcome rather than process"

Eloquently said!

[DianaForRussFeingold]

85. K&R 'Power is corrupting and absolute power is absolutely corrupt'

He seems very frustrated, too! Imagine what resolution the decider would use, if he was impeached :eyes: Feingold (D-Wis)In an address given October 12, 2001 explained why he, alone among United States Senators, voted against the Administration-sponsored “U.S.A. Patriot” Act. http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm This is a great history lesson and warning, too!

[Javaman]

88. And so the repukes get another free pass. weeeeee....nt

[blues90]

91. I feel it was a huge mistake to not attempt impeachment

If the Dems had at least tried from their start in Dec then perhaps the momentum would have built up by now .

As long as bush retains office the more the damage continues .

If they never try how will they know what will happen .

[pacalo]

92. There won't be any references in history explaining this reasoning for no impeachment.

No impeachment says nothing was done wrong.

If & when the historians list all the wrongdoing of this administration, what reasoning will be recorded as to why it was allowed to continue, then nothing was done about it?

[Senator]

94. Feingold is a Walking Squawking Pavlovian Parrot

All the beltway-blinded, rationalization memes flow from his lips like they're on a tape loop. Do they even listen to themselves? What exactly would be the more "pressing issues" than war crimes?

Failure to Impeach is approval -- complicity -- exoneration for the regime.

Feingold (and the rest) have now taken up defending the bush legacy.

Here's his script: A Sampling of Impeachophobia False Memes

---

[bigtree]

102. one day he's a hero here, the next . . .

you provide his script? Typical.

If they proceed directly to impeachment, especially one which you could clearly see there's no chance in hell of a successful prosecution, what responsibility will you take for Congress' abandonment of the myriad of other levers of our democracy they're charged with?

You posture like impeachment would be the most effective way for this Congress to hold Bush accountable but you can't assure that it will. The balance of power in both houses heavily weighted against a conviction . . . where do get off claiming impeachment will do ANYTHING to address ANY of the needs and concerns Americans have?

There are plenty of levers of accountability available to Congress short of the extraordinary act of voting to remove someone from office, and Congress is just as responsible and right in taking the time and effort to use those other levers as they seek to confront the administration. Just advocating impeachment doesn't cover even a fraction of their responsibility. Where do you come off advocating that they abandon all of the rest for your pipe dream panacea?

[Senator]

106. His censure proposal was/is "heroic"...

...but only to the extent that it would be better than nothing. (And incidently would not preclude impeachment as well.)

His failure to impeach -- far less than heroic because it is doing nothing.

Americans are not idiots. They know war criminals when they see them. They know Stalinist election thieves when they see them. They know fascists when they see them. And they know failure to confront any of this when they see it.

The only real "need and concern Americans have" at the moment is for someone to simply voice their objection to the never-elected, never-legitimate regime. And perhaps reassert American Values.

Failure to impeach is approval -- complicity -- exoneration for the regime.

Only Impeachment can demonstrate that the American People haven't been permanently taken out of the loop.

--

[upi402]

104. Sadly, reluctantly... I'm hearing you

I can't imagine Republicans not pouncing upon JUST ONE of these issues that BushCo spews weekly.

[calimary]

108. Goddammit, Feingold, I don't care!!! It has to be done ANYWAY!!!

SHUT UP with the excuses already!!!

:grr:

[deacon]

109. Then get rid of the law- impeachment no matter what the political

costs is needed.