*Sigh* Anyone Who Truly Believes "Impeachment Is Off The Table" Is A Naive Fool

[Beetwasher]

Or worse. Read this Kos post and quit yer whinin' (and trollin').

The Showdown is Here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/14/141311/367

[saracat]

1. So Al Gore is a naive fool?

[Beetwasher]

2. He's A Politician

He's saying what he thinks is best for the moment, politically.

[avb7]

5. Would love impeachment but......

the chances of getting 66 votes in the senate are, if not impossible, highly unlikely. The Dems can't seem to get anything through the repugs who will go to their graves to protect the monkey. Impeachment is a tempting answer to this disaster of a president but sadly I think it is just a dream. Also think about the alternative. Lord Vadar and his twisted view of the world would then hold all the cards and we would really be in trouble.

[Beetwasher]

13. Whether It Would Suceed Or Not

At this point is irrelevant. It's become a necessity and the Dems in Congress are smart enough to know that, but it has to be done correctly, with the proper preparation.

[Cha]

6. And Gore can be wrong..I don't think

he's being "political" since he "fell out of love with politics" but name me one person who is right 100% of the time?

This could be a tsunami of the People's wishes.

[Beetwasher]

14. I Dunno

Once a politician, always a politician. He's become and even BETTER politician since he "fell out of love" as it were, IMO.

[wtmusic]

3. The "Republican Establishment" will never back impeachment

Its key players belong to the largest, most-established, richest lobbies in the world. American petroleum profits last year were $125B and they want Iraqi oil, even if they have to keep the war going a decade or two to get it all. Not to mention the entire sector of the economy which profits immensely on the war itself.

This writer is totally out to lunch as to who is really in power here.

[mloutre]

7. Yeah, that's what they told us back in 1973, too.

Then by spring of 1974 we had that bastard so badly on the ropes that even his staunchest Repo allies told him he'd better pack up and go home or he was gonna go to jail.

The whole thing about impeachment isn't to get sucked into arguments whether it's "on the table" or "off the table" -- it's to make it inevitable instead.

The only way the Repo power trust is going to allow Bu$hCo to be impeached -- and remember, these are the same people who pursued the bogus Clinton impeachment precisely because it was in fact bogus, thus trivializing the concept of impeachment in the minds of voters down the road -- is when the preponderance of evidence grows so inescapably high that they have no choice but to acquiesce to its inevitability.

We're getting pretty close to that particular tipping point again here. And it's about friggin time.



** Edited to add link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

[wtmusic]

9. You're right

but IMO times have changed. The stakes are higher, the interests have consolidated.

Don't get me wrong: impeachment must happen. But Democrats will have to fight every step of the way.

[zonmoy]

10. the biggest problem is that many of those lobbies

also back the democratic leadership so that they cant do anything to fix this mess.

[wtmusic]

11. and perhaps that is why we see the foot-dragging

good point. :thumbsup:

[Duer 157099]

4. I don't understand thisquote:

"I never thought that Bush and Cheney could be removed for their past crimes, but only for refusing to cooperate with subpoenas that would expose those past crimes. And, for that strategy to be effective, the Dems had to plausibly 'take impeachment off the table' and take the abuse of the angry left." (emphasis mine)

How did taking impeachment off the table facilitate *anything*?? Is the idea that it emboldened BushCo? If so, that just sucks, because they didn't need emboldening, and it could be argued that even if it did embolden them, it also resulted in some serious damage.

No, impeachment never needed to be taken off the table! Never! All that did was prove that certain members of Congress just DO NOT understand the Constitution sufficiently to know the purpose of impeachment.

Failure to impeach, especially now, but also certainly just as much so a year, two years, three years ago, perhaps more, is a blatant failure of Congress to uphold and defend the Constitution.

[rodeodance]

8. worse, it could be read as Dems allowing things to happen

.....How did taking impeachment off the table facilitate *anything*?? Is the idea that it emboldened BushCo? If so, that just sucks, because they didn't need emboldening, and it could be argued that even if it did embolden them, it also resulted in some serious damage.

[phildo]

12. Exactly.-- Supposed to be clever politics.

Since Cheney would be impeached first (and be replaced by a moderate R), when Bush was removed, a competent, moderate R would be sitting in the White House for the Democratic Presidential candidates to face in the election. If that moderate, competent R were sitting there and ended the war, America may elect him/her instead of the Democratic candidate.

The Democratic leadership do not want to risk that -- and would rather let the US and the troops get totally fucked over watching Bush/Cheney drive US off the cliff.

mho.

[Beetwasher]

16. It's Perception

Just because they say "impeachment is off the table" doesn't mean they mean it. It's perception management and PR. So they can say "We really didn't want to this, as we've said in the past, but we were really left w/ no choice".

That's politics. Can't nobody round here play this game? :shrug:

[LWolf]

15. So...anyone who believes what a politician says is a naive fool....

Okay.

That means that anyone who believes anything that any of the current candidates SAYS, without some actual record of action to support it, is a naive fool.

Good to know.

[Beetwasher]

18. Pretty Much

Where you been? It's called politics. Heard of it?

[LWolf]

22. Of course!

Perhaps I should just bookmark that statement to reply to anyone who wants to tell me why their candidate is so great, based on some speech the candidate gave or something they SAID.

It seems to be conveniently forgotten along the campaign line, lol.

[Beetwasher]

24. Perhaps You Should!

:shrug:

[mmonk]

17. That's your proof?

It's not like finally there is something impeachable. We have volumes of proof and investigations for myriads of impeachable offenses. Many republicans aren't moving from their position because there hasn't been any threat.

[Beetwasher]

20. Who Said Anything About Proof?

What the heck does proof have to do w/ anything? :shrug:

[mmonk]

21. Then what's your point?

[Beetwasher]

23. Umm, I'm Stating My Opinion

That all these whiners saying "I want impeachment now! Damnit! Or I'm going to blah blah blah" don't have a clue.

What's YOUR point? :shrug:

[mzmolly]

19. We never know where investigations will lead....

Paraphrasing Nancy Pelosi above. :hi: