I promise to eat crow if I am wrong

[proud2BlibKansan]

Or you can make me eat chocolate. I hate chocolate. (I know, it's nuts but I really can't stand it.)

But here is the deal. I am reading all these articles this morning about Gonzo and how the Dems are going after him. And they told us Monday they would issue subpoenas on Wednesday against Miers and Bolton. (legal minds, why did it take 2 days?) And I am wondering WHAT they will do about Gonzo and how long it will take to get it done.

I have taken my first summer off in forever and I have done a lot of traveling. But when I have been home, I have been a religious CSPAN viewer. The thing that strikes me the most is how SLOW our Congress moves. If they aren't naming post offices, they are having silly arguments about an important issue, but the actual movement on the issue seems to take forever. Like today, the Senate is talking about border security. Like they don't ALREADY KNOW that our borders are fragile???

And I like Robert Byrd as much as the next guy, but sheesh, why is he ALWAYS on the floor and the takes so frickin long to say the simplest things!!

So I sit here and think that if they don't do something SUBSTANTIAL and SOON to go after bushco, we're screwn. 16 months is going to fly by and he will still be in office thumbing his nose at the American people and our constitution.

Some of you know I have actually seen some of the evidence against bush. And I have been saying all summer, start the damn hearings, air the evidence and the American people will revolt if Congress doesn't impeach him. Conyers knows the evidence is there. I would imagine Pelosi knows also. They have both chosen to be loyal to their party and focus on re-election instead of upholding our constitution and impeaching the president and vice-president.

Do not forget that some of the same people Conyers had arrested on Monday had worked WITH HIM to gather the evidence to support impeachment. Do not forget that Conyers was the congressman who STARTED the investigations.

I am done signing petitions and writing letters and calling Congress. They are not listening. The Dems we worked so hard to elect just 8 months ago have not kept their word. They don't want to end the war (don't forget that the war was NOT on that first 100 hour agenda of Pelosi's!) And their vote to continue the funding is affirmation of their desire to keep our military in Iraq. Yesterday's vote to build no more permanent bases in Iraq said NOTHING about the bases that are ALREADY THERE. And then there is that world's largest embassy they are building.

So this is why I favor impeachment now. At the snail's pace our congress moves, they have no more time for investigations. And we cannot sit back and let them give bush a free ride. They are setting a precedent and telling every other president after this one that it is okay to lie to the American people, it is okay to illegally invade foreign countries, it is okay to spy on US citizens, it is okay to trash our constitution.

Spare me the lectures about the constitution and the impeachment process. My dad was an American History teacher and I understood the constitution better than most Americans by the time I was 10 years old.

My point is if WE don't insist that our constitution be preserved, if we don't insist on impeachment and SOON, we are letting the biggest pair of criminals in our history get away with the worst crimes any administration has ever committed.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Soon or we've lost the nation

I'm just at a loss as to what to do. The massive demonstrations in 2003 were ignored by the MSM as well as our elected officials. I don't believe in using violence, but I've yet to come up with a creative non-violent way to change things.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I hear you.

I am just so angry. The damn clock is ticking. And they need to stop hitting that snooze alarm.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

4. I'm Already Afraid It Might Be Too Late

The question is whether it is too late to make plans to leave before things really get ugly.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. My son's girlfriend moved to Canada

She is only 25 and she figured it out about 6 months ago.

[MLFerrell]

28. How did she manage that?

I'm also 25, and I've been looking into emigrating to Canada for more than a year! From what I've gathered, they have some strict protectionist laws regarding working in Canada as a foreign national, i.e. employers have to hire a qualified Canadian applicant if possible before they look elsewhere.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. Her parents are from there and they have dual citizenship

So I would imagine she does as well.

[MLFerrell]

85. I don't suppose she has a (preferably cute) sister...

Who wants to get "married", does she?

:)

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. Just a brother

but he's cute. :)

[MLFerrell]

92. Wouldn't be the first time I wished I were gay!

:)

[Toasterlad]

95. Sold!

Tell him I'll be up with my things next Wednesday. :woohoo:

[Fiendish Thingy]

86. That's only if you want to get a work Visa-

If you want to immigrate to Canada as a permanent resident, there's a point system that counts your age, education, years of work experience, language, employment status and Canadian relatives. If you've finished college and have more than 2 years work experience, that should get you pretty close; if you have a job offer in Canada, and are bilingual English/French, that may put you "over the top" as far as points go...good luck!

[Individualist]

43. If I could afford to do so, I'd leave now

All one has to do is connect the dots. The cabal has already laid the groundwork for martial law and seizing bank accounts, they're hyping terror, increasing military strength, etc. They're like trapped animals now and know they have to act soon to maintain power. I'm concerned they will use the August recess to put the final touches on whatever plan they're working on. There are times when I hate being realistic, and this is one of them. :(

[Cleita]

13. I had a mini-inspiration this week, but don't have the means to

implement it, but maybe someone who does could play with this idea. Instead of sending money to campaign contributions, why doesn't someone form a production company and we can send the money to them to produce commercials and buy commercial time on national TV airing news and other information on it? Like there could be an impeachment commercial stating all the reasons why Congress should impeach. It would be 30 to 60 minutes long like regular commercials played several times a day. We could also have an announcement that says, "Paid for by citizens who would have used the money for campaign contributions at another time."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. I LIKE it!

I'd donate a few bucks, and I only have a few bucks to donate.

[EFerrari]

34. But, could we get it aired? MoveOn had trouble getting anyone

to air their ads.

NYTs is a venue that will, though. And, there's also the net.

I like this idea. :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

68. That was the Super Bowl

And the NFL refused the ads. Surely there are other programmers who may accept them.

[EFerrari]

70. Don't mess with the Super Bowl!

lol

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. Seriously, Robert Greenwald may work with us on this

I wonder if we should try to contact him?

[EFerrari]

75. Why not? Addy:

robert@ robertgreenwald.org

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. And I met him in DC!

I am getting ready to go out now but I will email him when I get home. I doubt he will remember me but I still think this issue is important enough to contact him.

[EFerrari]

78. You meet everybody!

:mad:

lol

[Poiuyt]

81. I think it was CBS who refused to play the ads (during the Super Bowl)

[Cleita]

87. Ooooh! I didn't know that the money hogs were refusing advertising

money! This is serious. However, maybe enough stations can be found that will air them.

[Vilis Veritas]

116. What about CurrentTV? Would they air it? nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Yes I like that idea

I would definitely send money for such a worthy cause.

[KittyWampus]

3. go hammer away on the GOP house members then...

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. LIke I haven't been doing that??

How many have you hammered on?

There are 5 I contact regularly and I also contact 2 blue dog Dems (they are actually republicans in disguise.)

[KittyWampus]

89. hey, if you're on eastern LI, let me know and I will buy you lunch and then take you

to a place that has the BEST pumpkin ice cream for dessert!

Not kidding. Really.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. I've been doing that

My conman is a repuke. I call and write him regularly, and, to his credit, he always replies. It's always to tell me I'm wrong and he's right, but I still keep doing it.

[OzarkDem]

61. That won't make the Dems do their job

Dem leaders are failing us. As long as they do, it won't help to pressure the GOP. They're loving it.

The only positive side to all of this is that it will encourage more rank & file Dems to run for public office themselves instead of counting on the career politicians to get the job done.

[liberal N proud]

5. ie. Byrd

The reason he is always on the floor is because he moves so slow that it would take him 3 hours to move from one side of chambers to the other.
He talks just as slow.

I would hate to lose him in the Senate but he has been past his prime.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I think he must have Parkinson's

My dad had it and he moved pretty slow too. But he was mentally sharp until the day he died.

[dorkulon]

38. I think Michael vick is a shithead, but does anyone else see how

it might be inappropriate for a former KKK "Exalted Cyclops" to call him "barbaric" repeatedly?

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. I think this is a silly issue for the Senate to be involved in

And I think Michael Vick is a shithead too. IF he is guilty of dogfighting, he deserves to be locked up. But isn't it already illegal in every state? Besides extending prison time by making this a federal crime, what difference does it make if the federal government gets involved in this case or with this issue?

It's a step above naming post offices if you ask me.

[Individualist]

9. You're not wrong,

but I'm afraid it may already be too late. The PNAC cabal is like a cornered animal, and like a cornered animal they're dangerous. There's nothing they won't do to retain power, and I'm concerned they'll finalize whatever plans they have during the August vacation. Because of the Democratic majority's failure to take action against criminality, they will also bear responsiblility for whatever is to come.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

[MindPilot]

10. Pass the salt, please...

My biggest fear right now (other than the upcoming false flag "terror" attack and the resultant martial law) is that the Dems will let the the rethugs run out the clock and the BFEE criminals will walk away clean.

On edit: The House Armed Services Committee recently announced it will introduce legislation to insure the troops have adequate time at home between deployments. All they are doing is legitimatizing yet another disastrous misadministration policy. They could make a rule against mandatory multiple combat deployments, but it seems that in many ways, they are still in go-along-to-get-along mode.

[global1]

11. What Evidence Have You Seen Against * .....

you said that some of us know this. What are you talking about?

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Go to an impeachment forum; they are holding them all over the country

I have been to 3 of them. They will lay out the evidence and explain it, and it's pretty clear. There are so many chargeable offenses it will blow your mind. And remember, they had only had how many on Clinton? (I don't remember exactly, but it was only one or two I think.)

I also think that the charges are laid out on after downing street website.

[cynatnite]

12. I totally understand your frustration...

we all want it to happen now, but it just doesn't work that way no matter how much we want. The fact of the matter is we're stuck with what we've got and there isn't a hell of a lot we can do about it. I hate it.

Since we've got so many repukes who continue to stand by bush on the war and refuse to budge despite how unpopular the war is and the unpopularity of the president. We've got a WH that flips the bird at congress and the American people. They ignore the rule of law, refuse to turn over documents and have outright denied the most basic access of what was normally a given in past administrations.

When there is such a slim majority in the senate there is little to no hope of getting the government to comply on just about anything. Without some republican support any hope of getting movement on issues like the war and impeachment is at a virtual standstill.

Gonzales lies under oath and he may very well get away with it. Scooter got away with obstructing justice and lying under oath. I fear that even more criminals will escape justice with the help of the WH.

Considering what we're dealing with here, my thinking is that the only real hope our republic has are the 08 elections. Maybe then we can get a semblence of our democracy back and much of the constitution will be reinstated. It's my hope...that's not to say it'll happen.

It's rather depressing, isn't it? :hug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. And like I have been saying all along,

if the American public sees the evidence that is already there, they will demand impeachment. And the republicans will be where we need them to be. But the only way for everyone to see the evidence is for impeachment hearings to begin.

We used to have media in this country. Remember it was media that played a large role in bringing down Nixon. But since we cannot depend on our media (the Downing Street Minutes is one of many glaring examples) we have to force our Congress to air the evidence.

If you have any better ideas for informing the American public of bushco's crimes, I am all ears.

[cynatnite]

62. The problem is the repukes continue to put party over country...

despite polls and everything else. IMO, the evidence clearly shows that bush and cheney have committed impeachable offenses. The repukes know it and ignore it in preference to their base and their party. They don't care about the rule of law and the constitution anymore than bush and cheney do.

We used to have a responsible media and sadly that is no longer the case. It's mostly corporate which means they care more about money than doing the right thing.

I do think majority of the America public wants impeachment. Between the Iraq War, Gonzales, Plame and maybe a few other things I do believe the people know enough to see how corrupt the WH has become.

But like I said, it's party over country for them. Because of that we're stuck in this hole and all that's left is the 08 elections, IMO.

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. I think both parties play that game

And I never said that until recently.

[Usrename]

111. A good hard look at our party leadership is needed.

A hard, unbiased look at their behavior. Forget about all the rhetoric for a second and just look at their behavior.

What I mean is, look at what they are actually accomplishing, what do they manage to get done, instead of all the talk about the things they want to do, but can't. I know it's difficult, because somehow you know you won't like what you see.

In the House, right now, today, members are defying their own party leadership in order to sign on to Kucinich's impeachment bill against Cheney.

As long as our party leadership gives cover to the Republican minority, by taking impeachment off the table, how are we supposed to light a fire under the Republicans? It is impossible.

Blaming the opposition party for this failure in leadership doesn't make sense to me.

Once you see things the way they are right now, then it's obvious that the only thing our leadership gets done, very efficiently, is when they provide Bush political cover.

I'm not offering this analysis as any kind of solution or anything. I'm just trying to make the observation, that's all. To move forward to any solution is much different.

[meegbear]

14. Rather make you eat shit ...

better chance you won't like that.

[MindPilot]

17. We've all been eating that for close to seven years now.

And by the time * is done screwing the country, crow may be a delicacy.

[evlbstrd]

15. The difference between 1972 and now

is the way M$M doesn't cover the stories.
Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre were all over the teevee back then. Now, there's nary a peep about obstruction, perjury, etc., outside of Amy Goodman and Keith Olberman. And who watches them?

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. LOL I just now typed that response

Daniel Ellsberg had no trouble finding newspapers to publish the Pentagon Papers. The Washington Post aired the Watergate scandal for all America to see. But in the information age of the 21st century, when we have the internet, we can't communicate vital information to the American people. If bush killed a baby, and it was on video, (hell, he could even do it on live teevee) the media would not only fail to report the murder, they would be aiding in swiftboating the baby by the next morning.

[evlbstrd]

88. GMTA!

That's what makes all of this so damned frustrating. Just trying to explain it to people who don't follow this stuff is like banging my head against a wall.

[Usrename]

112. We all know how that would go..

"It was a terrorist baby. It was his duty to kill it."

[poverlay]

16. Uuummm, that whole "I don't like chocolate." thing wouldn't be comparable to a certain Brer Rabbit

would it? "Puh puh leeeeze sah, puhleeeeeze don't throw me in dat der briar patch! I suuure don't like dat der briar patch!"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Thank You For Your Concern.

[havocmom]

35. LOL

best answer! :thumbsup:

[Hydra]

19. You won't be eating chocolate

the way I see it, we have 3 choices, and these are not collective choices. These are simply what's going to happen, and which one we decide to accept is going to be pivitol.

1. Complete Fascist Dictatorship
2. Impeachment, Constitutional Convention or some other "Peaceful" gov't restructure
3. Violent Revolution

Which do you prefer?

:popcorn:

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. Number 3 is the most likely choice

I would prefer #2 but that is unlikely.

[Hydra]

54. All three are valid

The problem comes in who supports which.

By nature, I'm lazy, so I'd like to see impeachment or restructure in favor of rule of law and dismantling *'s initiatives and such over the years, so I favor #2.

A goodly number of our citizens favor #1, because they feel that personal freedom is an evil thing, and would prefer to be ruled if it makes everyone else do what they have to.

#3 has problems with it. It would be nice to have an empowered citizenship, but most people would turn to whoever came out on top of the struggle to lead the way forward, and I prefer the idea that we all get a say, and the best idea wins out. That's not likely to be the case if revolution ever becomes required.

[bigtree]

22. you can look and see how they're working to move forward with holding the administration accountable

but refusing to acknowledge those efforts; holding up the end product of impeachment to the exclusion of the many avenues of oversight in Congress underway that would take us there; is a shortsighted misunderstanding of how best to move Congress to that ultimate accountability.

If you want a faster pace, you may need a Congress with a balance of power which will provide a hedge against the obstructionism we've seen with filibusters and vetoes. Right now, though, the opponents of reform are manipulating and hoping you'll get frustrated and disengage from those levers of accountability.

What I don't see in your appeal is an effective way to generate the support you need in this Congress to move to the impeachment you want. I think that will only come from the efforts of some outside prosecution which would remove the taint of partisanship from the effort and galvanize recalcitrant republicans to join in a unified rebuke of the administration.

I really don't think the stomping of your feet is enough. As difficult and frustrating as politics is, there is still a need to reconcile the myriad of opinions, motivations, and strategies which come from the diverse collection of legislators from the many different regions of the country. That's where the business of moving forward to some ultimate rebuke will take place.

I believe we should work to support the investigatory efforts already underway in the committees of Conyers, Leahy, and Waxman as they move closer and closer to forcing the administration to come clean. A great deal of the activism coming from folks has been in protest of the reluctance of these chairmen to move immediately to an impeachment. That's incredibly short-sighted, and self-defeating, to dismiss their work or disregard it, just because it hasn't yet produced the impeachment you want. That strident criticism of these Democrats for refusing to support impeachment right now has obscured and worked to devalue the important work from these committees that has been taking place since the day we took the majority.

Funny how their work gets such a rush of support when the 'fruits' are revealed. Sad, though, how the progress of their work is always dismissed by critics eager to move to impeachment, as insufficient; no matter how much closer their progress moves us toward that ultimate accountability we all say we want.

[EFerrari]

24. A great deal of the activism is coming from folks, like proud2blib,

who have worked patiently for years at no small cost to themselves to lobby Congress to end the war. It is an error to say they only stamp their feet or make unreasonable demands or are in any way shortsighted.

[bigtree]

25. but you completely ignore my point that there are efforts underway in Congress

which may well lead to the accountability we all seek which has been ignored, and even disparaged, by pro-impeachment activists. I think the protests, in that case, amount to little more than feet-stamping.

[EFerrari]

29. No, I'm not ignoring your point, bigtree. And hasn't it been great

to see Waxman and Conyers and Leahy at work?

But, I wasn't referring only to protests but to all kinds of work up to and including working shoulder to shoulder with people like Mr. Conyers to move the work forward.

[bigtree]

40. I think many of the impeachment appeals brush right past the work being done

and I think that has been a travesty of leadership from proponents. What possible benefit has there been in dwelling on the disagreements we have with these Democratic legislators on their reluctance to move immediately to some impeachment? It's clear that they've been working diligently on advancing the accountability we all seek. You can see the exasperation from Conyers and Leahy as they manage these direct confrontations with the WH and are immediately hit from their left flank with a cattle-prod.

And look at the criticism. How much more could these individuals do to advance their committee prosecutions? It's not like they control the majority of legislators who don't support impeachment right now. Not even the Speaker has that kind of influence and control. But, they're certainly working to give Congress a pretext to act, by forcing and highlighting the White House's obstruction of their own inquiries. That's traditionally where political prosecutions have been successful as the targets are forced, at these points of accountability, to either produce or obstruct.

It's just amazingly short-sighted to dismiss those points of accountability which a dedication to due process provides. I think that has been the posture of the impeachment campaign, so far, to the natural rejection by legislators intent on crafting legislation and advancing it to Bush's desk. We're at the point now, though where we are seeing the product of these investigations move closer to directly confronting the administration. We need unity in our opposition now, more than ever.

[EFerrari]

44. I don't think we disagree on the process or on the importance

of the work now being done. And dwelling on disagreement is usually a fruitless waste of time -- unless you're actively trying to find a point of agreement in the process.

But, we may disagree here: I don't believe I am under any obligation to refrain from asking my representative for what I need. I don't believe I am under any obligation to please politicians and I'm too old to trust them to overcome their aversion to risk without pressure from their constituency.

[bigtree]

47. a difference, perhaps

I don't wear those disagreements with our own legislators on my sleeve. They hear from me all right. But, we have private discussions and communications on those disagreements. I won't risk giving any comfort to dedicated opponents by publicly highlighting and promoting those disagreements.

I really don't think the majority of that outside protesting was beneficial or effective in moving our Majority toward impeachment. I think a great deal of that protest against our own legislators on the impeachment issue served to distract from those other things we should agree and work "shoulder to shoulder" on.

[EFerrari]

69. Well, by definition, we don't know what was done in private.

And remember, this wasn't a group of Democrats. It was a coalition of progressives representing about a million people who'd signed that petition.

I understand why they went to Mr. Conyers' office rather than any other office. Imho, the meeting was handled badly by both sides and will have fall out for both sides of the conflict.

The thing that shocked me most about it (of all the shocking aspects of the event) was the kind of language someone as meticulous as Ray McGovern used in his press release. It wasn't only harsh and angry. There was a great deal of pain in it as well -- as there was in David's piece and in Medea's.

But Ray's concerned me in particular because he is in general a circumspect person. I'm not arguing that he was right or wrong here, just registering a concern for the future of a coalition of progressives.

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. I know a little bit about what happened in that office

and it wasn't pretty.

[EFerrari]

79. I think I'm part empath because my heart has literally hurt. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. The protests are coming from people who have been doing much more than

foot stomping. Some of those people were working WITH congress reps to gather evidence. Some of those people once worked in government and quit when they saw the corruption and wanted to help bring the criminals to justice (Ann Wright and Ray McGovern are just two of those people).

If you think we are all just stomping our feet and wishing for a pony, then you are grossly mistaken.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. I am doing a whole lot more than stomping my feet

I am doing more than most Americans are doing.

Now what have you been doing?

[bigtree]

52. great. but the stomping isn't really working

. . . it's serving, in many cases to obscure and dismiss efforts underway which could very well lead to the accountability we all say we want.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. And what they did BEFORE they stomped wasn't effective either

They don't see those efforts you mention paying off and frankly I don't either.

[Cameron27]

57. Yes, you've been doing more,

most Americans haven't said they thought Conyers was senile.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Something is up with that man

He did a complete flip.

[Cameron27]

83. I don't see any complete flip.

I see innuendo, and heresay evidence by a few people that goes against everything Conyers has said that's been documented.

And I wish that you and others would stop this "something is up with this man." That's just a subtle smear that's completely unsubstantiated by fact.

[EFerrari]

107. It's not innuendo or heresay. You know, most of his statements

are searchable.

And something is up with John Conyers and that isn't a smear, it's at bottom a question.

[Cameron27]

115. No, there really isn't anything out there to suggest

what Swanson and Sheehan say about him is correct. Conyers consistently cautions patience in every other source that I've found.

[EFerrari]

119. Oh, really?

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Conyers, after the Democrats gained control of both houses in the November elections, you wrote the following in a letter to supporters, quote, "As many of you also know, I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. Instead, we agree that oversight, accountability and checks and balances, which have been sorely lacking for the past six years, must occur. I have nothing but respect for those who might disagree, but that’s where I come out.” That’s what you wrote, but on January 27, you addressed that mass demonstration against war on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and had this to say regarding President Bush.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: George Bush has the habit of firing military leaders who tells him the Iraq war is failing. But let me tell you something. He can't fire you. He can't fire us. But we can fire him! We can fire him!

AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Conyers in Washington, D.C. Are you calling for President Bush's impeachment, Congressmember Conyers?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/16/1548232&mode=thread&tid=25

[Vilis Veritas]

117. Thank you.

Peace.

[wiggs]

23. That a big first step was finally taken this week against

a highly, obviously flawed USAG responsible for the politicization and near destruction of the entire JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is great. Blatant flouting of the laws and procedures of government should result in consequences...and congress literally has no choice except to stand up and be counted in this case. I hope it ends up with serious consequences that stick.

But I can't say that Proud2Blib is wrong in sticking with his oft-reinforced disappointment over 6 years of watching the worst administration ever, the worst appointees and nominees, and some of the worst legislation ever be foisted upon the public without a commensurate congressional (including dem) response. It's not P2BL's fault...it's natural and healthy to be suspicious and doubtful of how this is going to turn out. Turning 180 degress from an opinion 6 years in the making (reasonable opinion IMHO) after a single important first step that HAD to be taken can't be expected. One only has to count the hundreds of times someone has posted "this is the tipping point" or "Bush is toast" in DU to know how resilient the administration is and how fragile political momentum is.

And...as great as Conyers is, his position, dedication, philosophy, and vision may not be shared by congress as a whole.

I think Proud2Blib deserves empathy, not flames, for this post. And I hope fervently he has to eat crow.

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. If I mix chocolate with cherries, I can gag it down

Thanks for the empathy. :)

[MLFerrell]

26. There is nothing wrong with hating chocolate...

I hate peanut butter with equal passion!

[hfojvt]

27. hate to break it to you

but there is no possible way they will NOT get away with it.

Show me a scenario. Simultaneous impeachment making Nancy President? I find a high jump over the moon to be more believable/possible than that.

Imagine the other scenarios. Bush is impeached and convicted - Cheney becomes President, pardons Bush and appoints Giuliani as VEEP, or McCain. Either way, since the press has painted those two as 'great public servants and heroes with sterling character' the Senate could not possibly vote against them in significant numbers.

In the other scenario Cheney gets impeached/convicted first and Giuliani or McCain becomes VEEP.

The only way they can pay is through history if the names of Bush and Cheney become something like Stalin, Hitler, or Benedict Arnold. Examples of major, world class a$$holes.

But that does not seem likely either. Look at Reagan. He did all kinds of damage to our country, but the GOP still polishes his image and calls for a return of the gipper, without getting either laughed or jeered off of the stage.

Maybe we can hope that he will kill the GOP and Perot's party will replace it, but I am not seeing a strong surge there, unless they really get hammered in 2008.

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. I think you are right

But I don't see the GOP getting hammered in 2008.

[GeorgeGist]

30. No need to worry about eating crow ...

or chocolate. But beware of the chicken feed (Gonzo et al) that Conyer's et al will be offering in exchange for voting NO to impeachment.

[leftofthedial]

31. Umm

running out the clock until the 2008 "election" is the "democratic" strategy.

There is too much money to be made to change things now.

[KharmaTrain]

32. It's Coming...It's Coming

To say how our government works as being "Byzantine" is a gross understatement. In some ways this is deliberate as we saw how a partisan Judiciary committee bum-rushed the impeachment process (and even then it effectively shut down the entire government for nearly 6 months) that lowered the bar on what was a high crime and misdemeanor...so much so that many here feel this is how the process should work. It's not...and because of the slip-shod way Hyde, DeLay and that horde ran it in '98, it ultiamtely failed in the Senate...and in the history books.

Conyers, like many others, want an impeachment to be a successful one...the end result of documenting the crimes...political and otherwise of this regime and to use it for a full conviction in the Senate...the ultimate defense of the Constitution, but that's the end of the process, not where we're at now. Impeachment's on the table...it's just the table isn't set right yet. Yes, I know it's frustrating and all of our patience is worn, but we're dealing with a regime that now feels "liberated" to display their contempt and criminality in the open and 17 obstructionist Repugnican Senators who provide the cover for that criminality. Until that nut is cracked, there's little the Democrats can do other than what's being done.

Without investigations and a thorough accounting and documentation of the crimes and criminals that have occured, history and the Constitution aren't properly served. A quick rush to go after two political figures while allowing dozens of other criminals to slip free would be a great injustice.

This isn't about the process as much as the results. Something we all agree on...as we all want these criminals brought into account. Unfortunately with the depths of the corruption, this is going to take years...and while this regime still holds power, it's gonna slow obstruct the process at every step. Ultimate justice that is a complete justice is better than a failed attempt.

[OzarkDem]

63. Too little, too late - hallmark of Dem leaders

They've already been dragging their feet and doing a sh*tty job on this.

What evidence do you have that they're going to suddenly grow some brains and start implementing a better strategy to get the job done?

[KharmaTrain]

71. And Your Option?

Please...don't give me the impeach now...as a without a conviction booshie stays in power, the dying and war for profit in Iraq go on. I think we've been around and around on this one.

It's not my job to prove or disprove...this is to discuss. If there's a more effective way to reign in this regime and force it comply with subpoenas and break the obstruction in the Senate, I'm all ears, mouth, feet and more. Sorry things aren't moving as fast as you'd like...I'm frustrated, too...but what do you offer as a realistic alternative?

I trust those who know the system and can play a far better chess game than you or I. Obviously you seem to think you know better and have a better strategy.

[puebloknot]

82. "It's going to take years..." And they'll skate, just like with Reagan and Iran-Contra.

Complete justice? He, there's a bridge in Brooklyn or some oceanfront property in New Mexico....

[KharmaTrain]

84. It's Our Job To Make Them Pay

They'll get away if we let them. There weren't blogs and alternative sources of information during Iran-Contra like we have today. Most of what went on was difficult at best to follow and by the time the '92 elections and Poppy bush's pardons, it had been buried outta sight, outta mind. I saw the same thing with Watergate as well...the Nixon pardon let many skate who have come back to infest our body politic in worse ways since.

Well I plan to see that bridge in Brooklyn in a few weeks, but not interested in buying it.

Cheers...

[mzmolly]

118. Excellent post.

:toast:

[havocmom]

33. Thinkin there is a lot going on besides what is on C-SPAN

:eyes:

A lot more going on.

[EFerrari]

36. Me, too.

I hope when the shoe falls it's not a jackboot.

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Oh I know there is a lot more going on

But where the rubber meets the road is in Congress. So while I understand what has happened behind the scenes and why all that matters, I also know that Congress needs to act - and they aren't.

[havocmom]

100. Sorry you are missing the amazing things they are doing

It really is quite impressive.

[Generator]

42. I agree

This country has become the exact equivalent of a dsyfunctiale family-and a really really bad one-with incest, alcoholism and abuse. Basically by letting the Daddy off the hook-the children can't ever heal. By not making Mommy admit she is looking the other way and smiling-she can't become whole and the children can't forgive her. By not telling the truth-we can't stop future generations from this endless cycle-(pointless lied into war after pointless lied into war)propaganda as the medium that's accepted as TRUE.

The truth is not a small thing. More than a Democrat in the White House, this country needs the truth. It needs to know it's fed lies, propaganda, that spying and torture and avarice masquerading as "liberating" a country are not freedom. That the country they believe in doesn't exist. It can't exist without the people knowing the depths of the corruption and actually seeing that is wrong. And how do they find out it's wrong-because someone that represents them stands up and says-this is wrong, no more, no more, no more shadows, no more obscuring the truth. There isn't a Republican "view" and a Democratic "view." At this point,there are laws, and facts, and this administration is purely wrong and breaking the law, the constitution, it has abridged the very foundation of the nation.

There will be someone as bad or in my fears, much worse than Bush in our children's future. Because we have let the cycle of abuse just lie there-hoping and praying this is just an anomaly and it will all end magically on January 20,2009. NO!

These precedents are being set for generations. It's not about election 2008-it is so much more than that. They are fools if they cannot see that. And I think, primarily the Dems we have and the people on DU that continue to support that are IN DENIAL.

The world will all be healed on 1/20/2009. IF a Dem's in there. Sure. There will never ever be another evil Republican and these precedents of ABSOLUTE executive power will never be used. Sure.

[marions ghost]

49. We are corroding from within....

a lot of people in this country do not realize (or don't want to admit) the depths of corruption, not only in the federal government but at every level and sphere you want to name. So many are complicit that we have a hard time figuring out what truth is...

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. One of the best arguments for impeachment I have heard

is we need to put the brakes on this cabal of criminals. If we had impeached Nixon, we wouldn't have had Rumsfeld in the bush administration. Every time they drag out Kissinger, just hearing his name is like fingernails on a chalkboard to those of us old enough to remember the Nixon administration. We didn't get justice in 1974 and we won't get justice now if we don't impeach these monsters. Impeachment puts the brakes on ALL their underlings. So unless we want Monica Goodling as our vice president in 30 years, we need to impeach her boss now.

[OzarkDem]

66. Great analysis! Must read

We need to stop pretending that our leaders are doing an adequate job. They're not.

[EFerrari]

93. Exactly. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. Leahy said yesterday on Countdown that it would probably take to the end of the

administration to get Gonzo.

[OzarkDem]

67. Bullsh*t

If that's what he believes, he needs to resign his seat as chair right now.

Make Whitehouse the chair of the Judiciary Committee.

[lapislzi]

72. I know it's frustrating, but our government wasn't designed to move fast

I think (and this is strictly my interpretation) that the framers were deeply concerned about future governments moving in great haste or acting impetuously. Look at the historical background: the French Revolution that spiraled out of control in a matter of just a few years and wound up devouring its own (and ultimately reverting to a quasi-monarchist state). It was in the early stages during the drafting of the Constitution, and so was probably on the minds of the framers. So they designed checks, cross checks, and re-checks so that no one individual or group could go off half-cocked--for too long, anyway.

I am deeply, impotently, hair-tearingly frustrated by the speed at which this government moves (they make ents look positively hypersonic), but part of me believes that this is necessary. bush will skate if an investigation isn't done properly, as will all his minions. As irritating as it is, procedure is our friend.

Yes, it's driving me nuts. But that's why I'm not in government, nor could I be. It's enough to make you want to shoot a pistol into the air, and I don't even own a gun.

[puebloknot]

80. K&R You're right, they aren't listening. nt

[Guaranteed]

102. They ARE listening. And they're working. They are doing what they can.

That is what is so frustrating. You think you just need to raise your voice and then you'll get what you want. That is not the way that it works. You need to deal with the reality of the situation, and support the process already underway.

[puebloknot]

109. "...raise your voice and then you'll get what you want."

Like the Founders of this country? Like the Civil Rights Movement?

You need to not tell me what I need to deal with. Denial is a pernicious quality, and it is unraveling this country, one slow and deliberate stitch at a time.

[wiggs]

90. Related story: Leahy gives Gonzales time to correct official record

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_co/congress_gonzales_38;_ylt=AohrgAoQVwAesm6k6nuazweMwfIE


"In a separate letter Thursday to Gonzales, Leahy said he would give the attorney general eight days to correct, clarify or otherwise change his testimony "so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth.""

Wiggle room? I doubt that correction would keep special prosecutor from being named, but it looks like the perjury aspect is correctable.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. Isn't this like the third time?

How many chances does Gonzo get?

[wiggs]

94. another related story: Leahy hasn't formalized request for special prosecutor

and Spector isn't on board anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1445669&mesg_id=1445669

[BlooInBloo]

96. OMG - who hates chocolate? WHO?

:rofl:

[LWolf]

97. Very good points.

If not now, WHEN?

When it's too late?

[treestar]

98. Hope you never have to be involved in a court case

These things move slow because they must. They are designed to prevent impulsive behavior.

[TheBaldyMan]

101. Welcome to Washington D.C. - combines Northern charm & Southern efficiency

the dely has been the fault of the Bush WH, they have ducked and dived but they could have co-operated earlier. Instead they chose to paint themselves into a corner, Now it's a case of resignations or impeachment. The Bush WH could co-operate fully from now on but I'm afraid it would have the same outcome. They will reap the fruits of six solid years of abuse of office with no Congressional oversight.

It starts next week.

[proud2BlibKansan]

104. Next week? When do they go on vacation?

[TheBaldyMan]

105. a couple of days after, but they can extend the session if it's an emergency

can't see that happening unless Rove doesn't show up.

[rateyes]

103. I'll join you with a side of hat to go with that crow....

if you are wrong.

[rucky]

106. Hooray! I won the election!

Time to start campaigning for the next one.


This is what we're paying them for?

[orleans]

108. this is so sad, what you said:

"Do not forget that some of the same people Conyers had arrested on Monday had worked WITH HIM to gather the evidence to support impeachment. Do not forget that Conyers was the congressman who STARTED the investigations. "

true--and sad.

[Senator]

110. DON'T STOP Hammering Congress

It's not that "They are not listening." But rather, they are not ACTING.

Yes, find more creative and forceful ways to send the message. But don't stop with the VISITS, calls, emails, letters, and petitions. Continue to attack on any and all fronts. Force them to repeat their false meme rationalizations for inaction over and over again. Make their staffs repeat them to you. They're not automatons. They know they're spewing rubbish and they hate having to do it. It take a toll, wears them down.

Most importantly, try to get others to join in and step up their efforts if they can.

What we're battling is not a "real" force at all. It is an amalgam of fear, defeatism, delusion, parochialism, and irresponsibility that adds up to dereliction of duty. This force is merely a flood gate or keystone. At a certain point it can't/won't hold and resistance can/will drop like a house of cards.

We really are making headway. The Kucinich impeachment bill against cheney is picking up co-sponsors. And while it's useless to simply impeach cheney alone, it advances the general notion of impeachment -- even that bill can quickly be adjusted to do both of them. Once it is recognized that nothing less is demanded.

What we could really be doing better is to force impeachment into the primary process. Try to make it a litmus test for presidential candidates and find Pro-Impeachment primary opponents for Impeachophobes is "safe" seats. We need to try to exact a penalty for their refusal to stand up, and thereby defend the regime.

And no, this doesn't "hurt the party" or any candidate one bit. No more than any other "issue difference" -- in fact, far less so as the Rethugs can't exploit this argument to their advantage.

===

[The Backlash Cometh]

113. I think I've figured it out. Why Congress is so slow.

My dad once said that one should go to the negotiation table knowing that you can walk away without making a deal. And you just keep doing it, until the other side finally calls you and meets you on your own terms. Now hold that thought.

There are so many variables that come into play with the way Congress operates. First, we need to accept that there are two different ways to run government. One is open where there is an honest discussion out on the floor, the other occurs with backroom dealing. The Republicans have taken this backroom dealing to the highest level, with Dick Cheney and his secret Energy meeting being the best example. They have opened a direct door to the private sector, which never was there before because when the Democrats controlled Washington, they adhered to transparency laws. But the Republicans have made the case that these backroom meetings must remain secret in order to get unfettered opinions from the private sector. It's the biggest breach of our government process, and we all should be shocked that no one has yet stood up to criticize them about it.

Second, the Republicans have strengthen their negotiating position because they have done a great job of intimidating other Republicans, specifically moderate Republicans, in order to vote in a unified manner. There are weaknesses beginning to develop in this wall.

Third, the Democrats, who use to be in favor of transparency in government, have buckled and are now use to governing by consensus. They test the temperature of the water by making private phone calls, or worse, relying on lobbyists, to tell them how the other side will or will not budge on an issue. Based on their quick consensus poll, they compromise, even before the public has had a fair chance to review all the variables involved.

In a nutshell, Democrats have turned away from their roots, and have accepted backroom dealing as the primary method of doing business in Washington. Going back to my original anecdote, that's why Republicans have such a strong hand. They have succeeded in setting the terms of the negotiations in their favor, because they won't talk to the Democrats, unless the Democrats are willing to give something up.

So what should the Democrats do? Close the backrooms. They should make transparency in government a major issue. They should prove that those backroom deals are what's hurting our country because we're passing bad laws because there is no honest discourse taking place on the floor of Congress, where the public can get a chance to find the flaws in the ointment. And the Democrats should begin by pointing out that the Cheney Energy meeting is a great example why the private sector should never be given secret access to our elected officials.

[EFerrari]

114. Nancy, iirc, did make a statement very early on about transparency.