DON'T Impeach!

[kpete]

DON'T Impeach!
by Turkana
Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:27:00 PM PDT

Because the Constitution needed shredding.

Because the rule of law is quaint.

Because all those lies that got us into the war have been proved worth it.

Because the war should never end.

Because being an international pariah is kind of cool.

Because international law is silly.

Because torture is fun.

way more at:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/24/162212/852

[Disturbed]

1. This congress does not even have the spine to Impeach

Gonzo. In no way would they dare Impeach Darth or Busholini.

[ddbaj]

2. Childish.

How would impeachment help with any of the horrible things listed there? Will impeachment end the war in Iraq, stop the torture, bring any of the people who did this to justice?

Perhaps the author meant removal, if so I once again issue the challenge for someone to name 16 GOP senators who would vote to remove and are not either in safe seats or years away from facing the public. As always, I'll operate with the likely false assumption that all 50 dems + Joe Lieberman would vote to remove.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. great... we should just take it and like it huh?

what courage :puke:

[ddbaj]

6. Look

I hate that we don't have a system in which we can properly remove our leaders. It SUCKS. But from everything I see the reality is that impeachment would not lead to any actual change. If I am wrong someone please tell me a scenario in which impeachment actually changes the government, ends the war in Iraq or any of the other horrible crimes listed in the OP.

I want * and co gone as much as anyone, but I don't see how impeachment gets us there. I sadly think our best option is to focus on what positive changes we can get done for now in congress and kick ass in 08.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. With congress appoval down to what, 16%? you can kiss 08 goodbye.

People won't vote for leaders who refuse to do the right thing unless it pays off.

But you can dream that they will...

[magellan]

5. You can't say who'll vote to impeach and who won't

...till you get the impeachment proceedings going, which the corporate media will have no choice but to cover, which will finally bring BushCo's crimes to light for the American public.

[ddbaj]

7. Indeed.

However, I do not ask for a list of 16 GOP senators who would right now vote to remove, that'd be unreasonable. I ask for a list of 16 GOP senators who would vote for removal under any circumstances.

From what I've seen most of them are in safe seats, meaning a vote to not-remove costs them nothing, or not up for election for 5-7 years. Sorry, the system sucks but that's how it is.

[magellan]

10. Those seats might not be safe after impeachment proceedings

...receive wall-to-wall coverage.

Remember, the Republicans share Congress's low approval ratings. And so few people like Cheney (his approval numbers were 18% two YEARS ago) that it'd be really interesting to see what their constituents would do if DICK'S head were on the block...so to speak.

[elocs]

14. And you can't say that all Democrats would vote to convict either.

A vote to bring articles of impeachment on party lines would pass, but conviction in the Senate is problematic. About 1/3 of all the Republican senators would need to be convinced to vote for conviction assuming all the Democrats would vote to convict. It's also a big assumption that when the truth comes out that all of this will magically happen.

[magellan]

15. No bigger an assumption than it wouldn't get the votes

[elocs]

16. We can all assume what we like, but based on what we know now the votes are not there.

Now, right now, there is no indication that 16 Republican senators would vote to convict a president from their party. Right now the Democrats cannot even get enough Republicans in the Senate to vote to end debate. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Those who believe that somehow information coming out in an impeachment trial would be so compelling that 16 Republican senators would vote to convict a president from their party are making the biggest assumption about Bush being convicted. Head and vote counting goes on all the time in Congress, so who are the Republican senators likely to vote for conviction? Are they really going to hear new information about Bush that is so stunning and compelling that they do not know about already? Do the assume dance all you want, the votes are not there now and not likely to magically appear.

[Yukari Yakumo]

17. The dose of reality...

16 Repubs & UnHoly Joe & The Red State Democratic Senators

You need all of that to convict.

...

Yeah, like that'll ever happen within the next year and a half.

[elocs]

32. Time is definitely an issue.

Watergate hearings started in February of 1973 and Nixon did not resign until August of 1975, 2 1/2 year later. It took time to unfold and the Democrats controlled Congress the entire period. Why didn't the Democrats simply vote articles of impeachment against Nixon and then start the proceedings instead of having hearing first. Just because everybody "knows" what Bushco has done does not mean a lot until it is officially brought to light. It is like a Mafia boss who everybody "knows" is guilty, so why doesn't the DA simply indict him and bring him to trial? Could investigation, evidence, and witnesses willing to testify be an answer and not just hearsay (everybody "knows").

[onenote]

31. You can't get impeachment proceedings going until you have the votes to do so

And apparently the votes to do so aren't there -- there is a pending resolution for impeachment of Cheney. Yet over 95% of the Democrats in the House have chosen not to co-sponsor it.


No need for assumptions: the fact that Democrats in the House don't seem interested in pursuing impeachment if starting the process will require a purely partisan effort, is not an assumption, is a cold, hard fact

[KAZ]

9. An answer to your first 3 questions. Yes, yes, and yes.

The fact that the most important branch of this government took an action that, at least, tries to hold the criminals responsible, would mean much in the world. They forgave us for Bush-2000. They shuddered at Bush-2004. Even an unsuccessful impeachment would do much to alleviate the decades of future animosity we have created during the last 6 years.

[TahitiNut]

11. Cowardice

Cowards are very practiced in detecting sour grapes BEFORE even jumping up to try and eat them. Cowards are expert at finding rationalizations for inaction or retreat. Cowards call themselves "pragmatists" and "realists" and sneer at those who step forward to Do The Right Thing as 'childish' and unrealistic' and 'foolish' and 'purists' - but are always first in line to reap the benefits ... or say "I told you so" while cozying up to the corrupt. Cowards often have brown noses. Cowards appease and mollify and compromise and politely applaud when flowers are placed on the graves of those who fought.

:puke:

[elocs]

13. Conviction is not important to those screaming for impeachment of everybocy.

Only impeachment itself is important. Kind of like how the important thing was to have O.J. indicted and tried for his wife's murder. That he was acquited was a minor detail. Here, we already know that the Senate would be the jury and it does not take a politcal wizard to surmise how they might vote. In all of the posts that I have read that scream for impeachment I have never seen a single once come up with where the 16 Republican senators would come from to vote to convict, only that it will magically happen. Myself, I wouldn't assume that all the Democrats or Lieberman would vote to convict.

[Senator]

18. It Is This "Ziskey Doctrine" That Is Childish

That's why it was offered as something to be ridiculed:

Russell Ziskey: "When I was a kid, my father told me, 'never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it.'" (Stripes, 1981)

But to your challenge, the Senate has alreadly voted 90-9 in support of the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment -- that was sadly negated by the (impeachable) "Rule By Signing Statement." When put on the spot, by those who challenged the regime -- John Warner, Lindsay Graham, John McCain (who lead their GOP collegues on military matters) -- the war criminals walked alone. They were not given the after-the-fact absolution/participation they sought in their "War Criminal Protection Act."

It seems that it is the Impeachophobes who need to list which GOP Senators would reverse their stated public postions in order to now stand up in defense of war crimes -- to declare to the world for posterity that the USA is a War Criminal Nation.

But "having the votes" is virtually irrelevant. The point is to stand up in objection -- in the name of the American People -- against war crimes committed in their names, without their consent. To at least make accusation in defense of the US Constitution, as their oaths of office demand.

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

That's the alternative you are offering. And each passing day increases the risk of that being final outcome.

--

[puebloknot]

20. Quite correct. Without impeachment soon, we're simply...

...slouching toward the ultimate coverup in the hope that it will win the presidency for a Dem in 2008.

And there is the fact that a really in-depth investigation of many impeachable offenses would catch some Dems in the same net. If we Dems really are what we claim to be -- people who support the rule of law, international and domestic -- we'll opt for truth and justice -- not political pandering.

An impeachment process makes a permanent, official record of the crimes of this administration, and forces, as you have stated, members of the Senate to take a stand for all the world to see.

In my view, no one who will not take a stand for what is legal and moral -- with no guarantee of how it will affect his or her personal career, and with no guarantee that taking such a stand will yield the desired result -- has a right to serve in our Congress. "You do solemnly swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, so help you God?"

Nothing but a "Yes" is good enough.

[GeorgeGist]

21. Tell it to OJ ...

I'm sure he can tell you how wonderful it is to get away with murder and how respected he is for it.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Don't do the right thing unless it pays off? That's good advice. I'll pass that on to my kids.

[Phredicles]

27. "Don't even try unless you're sure you'll win" is also just some great advice.

:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

30. True! Don't swing the bat because you might miss and look bad....

[TahitiNut]

34. Well, doesn't everyone understand that it's not a virtue unless there's a reward???

God forbid anyone do what's right, kind, or generous unless they get rewarded for it!!

:eyes:

[Bandit]

33. How did it help during Nixon's time?

Let's see, Minimum wage raised, Vietnam funding ended, Clean Air Act, so many things accomplished because Nixon was weakened to the point of irrelevence..and he wasn't even Impeached but only had Articles filed.

[Solly Mack]

3. ...

[MrSlayer]

8. Don't worry. They won't.

Dry powder and whatnot.

[earthlover]

12. let's not lose our focus

DO we gave the votes to end the Iraq War?

Do we have the votes to end torture?

Do we have the votes to require the executive branch to follow international law?

We all know the answers.

So what makes us think impeachment would get the votes? Even more telling, if we put attention into impeachment, which is gonna fail anyway, wouldn't it be more productive to put the effort directly into trying to get Congres to end the Iraq War, torture, restore international law, etc? I hate to say it, but impeachment would be a huge distraction from these causes, not something that would necessarily further them.

Impeachment could also backfire. To me it's a no-win scenario with a risk of backlash. We already have the Reps fighting an uphill battle going into 08. Bush's poll numbers are about on par with the Unibomber's. So, at this late stage, it seems to me more productive use of time to work on winning Congress seats, electing a Dem Pres, and continuing our fight to end the war, etc on its own terms.

[lonestarnot]

22. Who's loosing focus? Not me!

IMPEACH!

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Because the Democrats want to be liked by the Republicans.

[Atman]

23. Slap one on!

|

.

[CanonRay]

24. They're going to wait until there are Blackwater troops in the streets,

and then it will be too late.

[mmonk]

28. Yep, terrible situation.

A constitution undefended is a constitution lost. The path to hell is being paved.

[WillyT]

29. Hey kpete ??? - Did You See This ???

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1176205&mesg_id=1176205

This is the quote that set me off:

"...a senior Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee recently argued to me, "we are holding what otherwise would be impeachment hearings under the heading of oversight" and publicly "embarrassing" the Bush-Cheney White House.


:banghead:

[demobabe]

35. Make a Top 10 list of Reasons for Impeachment to win $100 from Buzzflash

If Congress continues to play it cautious with the White House, they will, in essence, be giving every American carte blanche permission to break the law, because the President and Vice President of the United States are role models for criminal behavior.

Here's the contest link on Buzzflash:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/219