Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Harry Reid, etc.

[MonkeyFunk]

all think that impeachment right now is a bad idea.

In fact, no Democrat short of Dennis Kucinich (and who's shorter than DK badump!) supports impeachment.

So why do people say I'm a right-wing shill for agreeing with every major Democrat on a Democratic discussion board?

Like it or not, Bush is not going to be removed from office via impeachment. I'm not happy about it, but it's the truth. He's going to finish his term, and a Demcrat will replace him in January, 2009.

[Kiouni]

1. I agree

I don't think any of the front running candidate should endorse impeachment because it would just solidify the republican base against them. RIght now the rethugs are faltering and some are even seeing the light and renouncing their hardline ways and hoping for a strong democrat to take office.

[Mythsaje]

2. Hell, yeah!

That means they can carry on their war behind the scenes and come back with new tactics in 2012.

It'll be JUST LIKE Iran/Contra all over again. But BETTER!

[EFerrari]

3. Iran Contra plus the net. I can't wait!

:sarcasm:

[libnnc]

18. exactly

so much corruption and criminal behavior to look forward to

[Mark Twain Girl]

29. You know, this has been on my mind lately -- how Iran-Contra should have been smacked down hard

One might think that the powerful can abuse their power without facing the consequences, something like that.

[EFerrari]

32. And become more proficient at their criminality. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

4. People forget that out of all of the shit Nixon pulled, his downfall was a coverup of a petty crime

Abuses of power by Presidents really go as far back as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Yet none of them have been impeached for abuses of power, except Andrew Johnson who wasn't even guilty of a real abuse.

Presidents have lied to the country to go to war before and they have also preformed numerous illegal searches and seizures. Over 200 years of precedent says that Presidents don't get impeached and removed from office for these things. The Democrats have had 6 months in power. I'd say that overturning 200 years of precedent is a little difficult in such a short time frame.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. and half of Nixon's staff

had alredy been convicted. If you want to compare this situation to Nixon's, then we have to have hearings.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. I'm saying it's in no way comparable to the Nixon situation

Nixon was impeached for covering up a petty crime. People here want to impeach Bush for abuses of power. The former has precedent. The latter is more or less unprecedented.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. dupe n/t

[LoZoccolo]

5. But it gives us something to complain about!

If we couldn't throw fits about impeachment, we'd start realizing there's work to do to win the 2008 elections and feel bad about sitting around on the computer!

[John Q. Citizen]

28. What work? MonkeyFunk gave us the word from on high. The Dems are a shoe in in 2008.

He said so!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

35. I guess I'm not the only one...

that notes the continuing authoritative tone. Meh.

[LittleClarkie]

6. Russ Feingold, Howard Dean

Several people that folks on DU used to cheer. Suddenly, because of one issue, the are cowards.

[radfringe]

7. Investigate? good. Hearings? Fine.

but without taking the next step, without holding people accountable - it's just background noise

With each hearing, with each statement, with each press release my hopes are raised and then dashed

I'm reminded of the line from The Untouchables (kevin cosner/sean connery) - in a few different scenes Connery asks Cosner " “What are you… prepared… to do!” "

there was a thread by Will Pitt regarding impeachment, not sure if was tongue in cheek or not when he asked for a 3-word slogan - I came up with a 4-word slogan if you count the word "the"....

TAKE THE NEXT STEP

for those well versed in writing lyrics - try re-writing the song God Bless America as I MISS AMERICA....

Many of us are focused on one issue, it could be the Iraq occupation, or Halliburton, or the Justice Department - however bush/cheney have systematically destroyed many other institutions/departments

FEMA is useless, FDA is an empty office, Justice Department might as well be renamed Republic Party headquarters, State department has become the MIS-Statement department, our trust and faith in elections has been shredded into smaller pieces than the chads which were strewn on the floors of a Florida counting room and the list goes on

either by design or incompetence, bush/cheney have destroyed the very country they profess to defend.

So to Conyers, Leahy, and others I ask "WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO? Are you willing to take the next step?"

[madrchsod]

8. first thing that has to be done is

build an air tight case against bush that can be presented to the house for impeachment. second thing is have over 60 senators who are willing to convict. neither one of these conditions have been meant

[MonkeyFunk]

10. we need 67 votes....

[redqueen]

11. And we may get them...

so saying "it won't happen" is just dumb.

Wait and see... and write those republicans, and lecture them about the 'rule of law', or whatever other means of encouragement you prefer.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. no, we're not gonna get them

we can't get 60 votes to end a filibuster. How the hell are we gonna get 67 votes to remove the President? And even if we do, Cheney becomes president.

And if you think 18 Republicans will vote to remove both of them simultaneously and install Pelosi, I wanna share your drugs.

[redqueen]

14. The war is less and less popular every day...

Bush makes it more and more obvious that he cares nothing about what the people want (or, hell... reality) every day...

Who knows what changes might be in store?

[Usrename]

22. How about I disagree?

How about they vote on it every day until the votes are there?

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. A Democrat is not insured to replace him

If they would start the impeachment hearings and air the evidence, he would not only be impeached but the republican party would lose badly in most 08 elections. That would guarantee a Dem prez in 08. Not moving ahead on impeachment hearings will cause the American people to call the Dems cowards.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards thought Iraq was a good idea.

I forget. How did that turn out?

[TahitiNut]

19. They're our EMPLOYEES, not our BOSSES.

:shrug: Such mindless kowtowing is yet another reason I proudly regard myself as an independent liberal.

Oh, and for what it's worth, Hillary is shorter than Kucinich!

(In more ways than one!)

[OneBlueSky]

20. "and a Demcrat will replace him in January, 2009" . . . don't be so sure . . .

if Congressional Democrats are simply waiting Bush out, they're very likely making a mistake of historic proportions . . .

whether they have the votes to impeach doesn't matter . . . it really doesn't . . . the votes weren't there when the Select Committee on Impeachment began considering the Nixon case, either . . . the point is that the Congress has a responsibility to impeach if "high crimes and misdemeanors" are suspected . . . and in BushCo's case, they are not merely suspected, they are in plain sight . . . the evidence for many is in the public record and is, in fact, prima facie . . .

but most importantly, time may well be running out . . . Bush is not issuing all of these draconian Executive Orders for the possible benefit of some future president . . . his mind doesn't work that way . . . he fully intends to activate them at the earliest possible time -- even if he and his co-conspirators have to orchestrate a national crisis as a trigger . . .

when that happens, it will be too late . . . the Constitution, and the powers of Congress, will be "suspended" in the interest of national security . . . they won't be ABLE to impeach . . . and those who dare to question the dictatorship may well find themselves in "re-education" camps -- with no habeus corpus . . . websites like DU will be shut down . . .

the problem with Congress is that they're more afraid of Bush/Cheney than they are of losing their country -- a state of affairs I find both baffling and thoroughly disgusting . . . future generations -- if there are any -- will shake their heads and ask "Why didn't they stop them?" . . .

[lazyriver]

23. "don't be so sure..."

I'm not sure for a different reason. How about this thought:

As Bush's "approval" numbers continue to drop, I would not be surprised to see the 'Pukes steal the impeachment issue themselves as a way to make it appear they are taking back "their" republican party. Sometime early next year as our Dem's are carefully keeping their powder dry, I could see a number of puke Congresspersons and Senators who will be up for reelection initiating some sort of (albeit probably bogus)impeachment proceedings on their own as a way to distance themselves from Bush's GOP and thereby creating an illusion they are all about change. I wouldn't be surprised if a select Presidential candidate from the Reich does the same thing.

Think of it as a way of distancing themselves from Bush/Cheney by creating and appealing to a new base of more moderate republicans. They've beaten all the ride they can get out of the old horse known as the evangelical nut wing of their party and will need to do something to show the new most powerful part of their base they aren't Bush/Cheney 2.0.

Bush & Cheney will walk out of office in 2009 billions of dollars richer so they won't care if the next generation of war mongers needs to appear to throw them under the political bus. It will all be good for them if they can steal control of Congress and possibly slip another puke into the Whitehouse as they make their getaway.

Is that crazy talk or might KKKArl utilize such a strategy? I can't rule out any tactic with these Nazis.

[tblue37]

21. I think they are actually laying the groundwork for impeachment, but

are holding their cards very close to their collective chest. They want the case to be impossible to resist, because they have to force the Republicans to get on board in order for it to lead to conviction and removal. You only get one chance at this, so they need to make sure they don't waste that chance.

I will be surprised if either Bush or Cheney finishes his term. Even if they do, though, they will probabl still face impeachment proceedings at some point anyway.

[Bicoastal]

26. Isn't Conyers PLANNING to begin impeachment for Cheney...

...when a few more congress critters sign on for it? Didn't I see that on "Greatest Threads" the other day, or was that just conjecture?

I feel almost like Sheehan barged in on Conyers' poker game and showed his hand to the rest of the table... "We don't have enough votes" right NOW, but we may in the future after a little more arm-twisting. Or am I wrong?

[tblue37]

36. No, I think you are quite right. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. because a lot of people dont understand politics.

[Bonobo]

25. You're no right-winger, that's for sure, but...

Sometimes I wonder if you fully appreciate how rigged and crooked our system is.

I also think you have too much faith in the people you named.

[EFerrari]

27. Rocky Anderson supports impeachment in a big way.

Oh, and then there's those 15 co-sponsors of HR 333 (did I get that right?).

[BlooInBloo]

30. I think they're mistaken, but I still support them generally, while encouraging them...

... to "come around" on stuff like that.

[mzmolly]

31. Key portion of your statement "impeachment right now."

People need to see the forest through the trees. Democrats are conducting investigations and if we give the Conyers TIME to do his job, we'll see JUST results.

I agree impeachment will not remove Bush, or end the war, but it will send a message to future US dictators and for that reason, we must let Mr. Conyers continue his work without counter productive tantrums.

[Independent_Liberal]

33. One thing you naysayers keep forgetting...

Bush is somebody who's never finished anything before in his life.

[LSK]

34. actually HR333 has 13 co-sponsors

But I get your message.

[Larkspur]

37. Because not impeaching Bush and Cheney will set a precedent for future presidents

that they can abuse the law with impunity.

If Congress doesn't hold Bush and Cheney accountable now, will they ever hold any President accountable for getting this nation into debacles based upon deceit?