I support impeachment, but I do not support the tactics used by some to promote it.

[mzmolly]

I think there are many here like me, who wish to see a thoughtful deliberate process leading to the impeachment of Bush Co.

I do not expect that impeachment will happen today. I do not expect that impeachment will end the war. However, I do feel that it is an essential and serious matter, and as such, we have to "get it right" when we venture down that path. We have to be taken seriously when/if that does happen.

My concerns about the most vocal/visible impeach NOW movement are as follows:

I am concerned that the public grand-standing by obvious individuals and their counter parts will leave the impression that Conyers is "caving" to "fringe groups" rather than building a methodical case for impeachment when the time comes? For example, when we ARE in a position to impeach, will Cindy Sheehan will be noted AS THE REASON sans the actual crimes of this @#% administration? Have we handed the media take a convenient "out?"

Additional concerns are that some appear to have a contrary rational for pursuing impeachment. On the one hand they say "impeach NOW to end the death and destruction" when others reply "we don't have the votes to remove NOW" they indicate "it's not about removal, it's about accountability." :crazy: I agree with the later statement, impeachment is about holding THEM accountable. However, to suggest that it will "end death and destruction" confuses the issue and alienates some who might support a rational argument for impeachment.

Anyone who is serious about impeachment would walk into Conyers office with people from all sides of the political isle without the media attention. Bruce Fein, John Dean and H20Man ;) and others who have made very compelling cases for impeachment need to have a place at the table. We need to have a serious discussion with respected people from every political stripe to take on this issue. Leaders who are actually concerned about accomplishing impeachment would bring those groups together, not make outrageous demands and alienate the ONE man who can actually do something about it.

Flame away, you've got about a half hour of my time.

Peace

[havocmom]

1. Rational and realistic.

That's gonna be a tough sell ;)

[mzmolly]

6. LOL

Glad I made sense to some. I do have my flame suit on and a cup o jo at my side.

[BridgeTheGap]

2. Stopping the "death and destruction"

can be achieved short of impeachment - i.e. cutting off funding.
Impeachment is about justice. Does anyone doubt that they have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors?"
The "executive privelege" excuse is used to hide damning evidence - if it hasn't already been destroyed...but there is plenty there. There has to be a linch-pin in this - someone or something that comes out and the dominoes begin tumbling!

[mzmolly]

4. Indeed, thus the need for investigations and testimony.

And we are "attempting" those things, thankfully.

[Yukari Yakumo]

116. No it won't.

Chimpy will find ways to keep 'em in Iraq even if funding is cut.

[Beelzebud]

3. Thank you for your concern.

[mzmolly]

8. Thanks for your polite response.

:hi: I enjoy when we can rationally listen to what others have to say.

[BeFree]

11. Yes

Your concern has been noted, mzmolly.

[mzmolly]

13. Thank you

again for the polite response.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I'm trying to help paddle that canoe with you.

[mzmolly]

7. Thanks Jackpinerad.

:hi:

[Marrah_G]

9. K and R

[mmonk]

10. The art of a politician is to make us look irrational

if they don't want to move on it. Thereby, they marginalize us and distance others from us. This removes the pressure they may feel.

[mzmolly]

12. That would be difficult to accomplish with a bipartisan movement.

Let's not help them is all I say.

[mmonk]

14. Is one grandstanding when they approach someone

who has held investigations and written a book on impeachable offenses and has attended impeachment rallies and given them hope they may do it? Now people say they wanted to be arrested, just want attention, and things like that. Maybe to a certain extent but they would prefer a different response and only when refused. Anyway, let's all move forward together.

[mzmolly]

15. Not if they approach this person in a thoughtful manner, however that was not the case

IMHO.

[mmonk]

16. We'll leave that to interpretation.

Grandstanding would be more in the form of trying to approach bush over the war as Cindy did (but it was a good grandstand as it was to make a point). Grandstanding requires preknowledge of what the answer is. Anyway, yes they made a fuss after they were told no, they must wait for elections. So be it.

[mzmolly]

17. I understand the "anger"

I just think it should be properly channeled. Again, as you've stated it's a matter of interpretation, and you have mine above.

Peace

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. YHO is wrong

You don't know how many times these same people HAD not only met with Conyers but worked WITH him building a case for impeachment. And yes, it was in a thoughtful manner.

[mzmolly]

91. I don't agree that what has happened is thoughtful.

Not at all. Thoughtful would have been to meet outside the media spotlight with a bipartisan group. Cindy could have used her visibility to do this, she chose to make threats shortly after the election instead. We've had "control" for a few months.

I know you are a personal friend of Cindy Sheehan's and I am certain you'll support her no matter what. I understand that, and I know you're sincere.

Not to be redundant but "peace."

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. Maybe I didn't make myself clear

Meetings outside the media spotlight WERE held. And it wasn't just Cindy. And this wasn't just after the election, but for years before that.

There is a huge backstory here that will probably never be told. But it's not my story to tell.

And I don't have all the details or know the whole story. But based on what I do know, we were screwed. By we, I mean the American people. Conyers could have acted months ago. The evidence is there and he knows it. That much I know for sure.

What I don't know is why. Still trying to figure that out. It has to be more than party loyalty or doing what Pelosi asked him to do. Conyers sure doesn't seem to be a man who would allow Pelosi to dictate to him.

I feel betrayed. If you knew what I knew, you would feel betrayed too.

This has nothing to do with my friendship with Cindy. I haven't even talked to her about any of this.

Oh and it's never redundant to say "peace". :hi:

[mzmolly]

101. I have confidence in John Conyers, not to "tell" others what he plans to do, but to do it.

Blessings to you P2B. Glad "peace" is not redundant. ;)

[proud2BlibKansan]

106. I sincerely hope your confidence is not misplaced

:)

[mzmolly]

109. It isn't.

LOL - see how confident I am? ;)

[Vilis Veritas]

158. Could it be that the leadership was trying to figure out how to

be 3 or 4 steps ahead of the admin? I mean, we all know that somehow the machine seems to always be a couple steps ahead of Congress and it just makes me wonder, because I used to call them complicit in my posts ALL THE TIME and now that I have talked (via phone and writing) to them about the delay, the feeling I get is that the leadership needed to think 3 or 4 steps ahead in order to prepare for whatever the thugs could come up with and I have had to change my take on this and reconsider my position.

I know from business, it takes a lot of strategy sessions to figure out all the angles and be successful when going up against a tough, seasoned, ruthless competitor.

I know that your knowledge and work goes far above anything that I do and I respect that. I am just trying to place myself in their shoes and ask myself, what would I do if I was faced with this admin and their lack of respect for the rule of law (besides running the other way).

Peace. Will. Prevail.

(I have to believe)

[jgraz]

18. I don't like all of the tactics either

What I object to is the harsh personal attacks on people who are using those tactics. We're fundamentally all on the same side.

[mzmolly]

20. I object to the harsh attacks on Conyers as well.

The latest "Rosa Parks speaks" attack was below the belt as is calling Cindy Sheehan a "whore/bitch."

[LittleClarkie]

47. Indeed, I don't like seeing either one.

Nor did I appreciate people calling Conyers an Uncle Tom and evoking MLK as if they spoke for the man.

[Lerkfish]

19. reminds me of a sermon I heard once, where satan tells us everything in the bible

is absolutely true, there is a god, and you should serve him and your fellow man.
Its all true....only....don't worry about it right now, there's plenty of time later on to worry about it.

(not calling the OP satan, just saying the rhetoric reminded me of that sermon)

[mzmolly]

22. Yeah, except that's not what I said.

Ever hear a sermon on convoluted reactionary hypocrisy?

[Lerkfish]

33. well, actually it IS sort of what you said...

"I do not expect that impeachment will happen today. I do not expect that impeachment will end the war. However, I do feel that it is an essential and serious matter, and as such, we have to "get it right" when we venture down that path. We have to be taken seriously when/if that does happen"

you are exactly doing what was in the sermon: you're saying its right, its important, but lets not rush into it, and gee, when/IF that does happen down the road.

If you're accusing me of hypocrisy, you're going to have to try harder to personally insult me.
May I suggest calling me fat? I am overweight, and that would really hurt my feelings.

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

36. I'm not accusing YOU of anything. And, regarding "what I said"

context is always important. Thankfully most of the "fat" people here got it. Totally kidding of course. ;) My point was about those who deem themselves "leaders" of the so called "movement" to impeach.

The rest of my point is summed up as follows:

Anyone who is serious about impeachment would walk into Conyers office with people from all sides of the political isle without the media attention. Bruce Fein, John Dean and H20Man ;) and others who have made very compelling cases for impeachment need to have a place at the table. We need to have a serious discussion with respected people from every political stripe to take on this issue. Leaders who are actually concerned about accomplishing impeachment would bring those groups together, not make outrageous demands and alienate the ONE man who can actually do something about it.

If you want to cherry pick my post and make a weak case against it, that's your prerogative.

I'm off as I've stayed longer than I intended.

Have a great day Lerkfish. :hi:

[H2O Man]

21. I had been

reading this, and nodding my head, when I saw "H2O Man" mentioned. You are kind.

This is a strange time. That strangeness can be seen on DU. People here seem to share most of the same basic concerns, but have very different ideas on how to achieve our common goals.

I believe, very strongly, that we are going to overcome the great difficulties that we face, as a nation, and that we are going to get our Constitutional democracy back on track. That's a difficult thing to do, considering how badly damaged our society has become. I think that we must, in order to end the US war of occupation in Iraq, take the machine that is driving the war off its tracks. That means the congress should impeach VP Dick Cheney. Others disagree, and that is okay.

Will Cheney be impeached? Can we end the war of occupation at any time soon? These are closely related questions. The answers will be decided in the future, as a consequence of our actions today.

We should stay positive. We should trust in the Power of Ideas.

[mzmolly]

24. I agree.

I believe, very strongly, that we are going to overcome the great difficulties that we face, as a nation, and that we are going to get our Constitutional democracy back on track.

When I read "The Conscience of a Liberal" by Paul Wellstone, one theme that was repeated throughout the book was "optimism." Paul Wellstone had faith that our Democracy would eventually right the wrongs. He did not believe that "wrongs" would not occur. I share that outlook. I also believe that the wheels of justice turn slowly, and that, fortunately or not, is part of our constitutional design.

Thanks again for the thoughtful reply H20Man. :hi:

[myrna minx]

53. Your post gave me goosebumps just thinking about how

our beloved Senator would have approached this whole mess. I too have hope. What Would Wellstone Do? :hi:

[mzmolly]

65. I miss him so

myrna minx, there is such a void.

WWWD? I like it! :hi:

[Virginia Dare]

43. We should trust in the Power of Ideas...

well, that's how we got here isn't it?

Very profound and inspiring words H20 Man..thanks! :yourock:

[omega minimo]

59. We waste time and energy quibbling

"This is a strange time. That strangeness can be seen on DU. People here seem to share most of the same basic concerns, but have very different ideas on how to achieve our common goals."

What helps is the discussions about our "common goals" and the "Power of Ideas" in the Founders' Document that is under attack. Thank you for your efforts to educate.

[H2O Man]

63. Right.

I think that some people, although sincere in their beliefs, are not aware of the importance of the Constitution. They have a limited grasp of the Bill of Rights. They want to "control" conversations, and limit what others say. Thus we see foolishness about the "benefit" of ignoring the lessons of important historical figures. That's as wrong as expecting a tree to grow when you cut off its roots.

We need to place more -- not less -- value on the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. And we should listen closely to the voices of patriots of the past.

[omega minimo]

155. "sincere/ not aware/ limited grasp/ want to "control" conversations and limit/ foolishness/ wrong"

"..sincere..not aware..limited grasp..want to "control" conversations and limit...foolishness...wrong..."

Yes, that sums it up purty well :evilgrin:

"We need to place more -- not less -- value on the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. And we should listen closely to the voices of patriots of the past."

We need to place more -- not less -- value on information and not indulge in talking out of our a$$es (to "control" and "limit" discussion). And we should listen closely to the voices who actually know what they're talking about.

We also need to deprogram ourselves from the careful post-Watergate propaganda campaign surrounding impeachment that muddies the waters. A lot of the unfortunate and misguided "strategeric" attitudes that are still being bickered about on DU derive from the bogus and illegitimate impeachment of Bill Clinton and the (dangerous and historically indefensible) NON impeachment of Reagan.

As you say, focus on the Constitution is imperative. Spin, strawmen and strategery are fluff.

:patriot: :thumbsup:

[Stinky The Clown]

23. I'm an impeachment hawk and I K&R this message

Impeachment **is** serious.

It needs to be taken seriously.

When some traveling troupe of political clowns uses it as a backdrop for stunts it impugns all of us who favor it. (As a clown, I can tell you there is little unity among clowns.)

[mzmolly]

25. LOL

Yours is a funny post. :rofl: "Little unity among clowns...." Love it!

[Virginia Dare]

45. I consider myself an Impeachment hawk too..

my only argument is that it's got to be done with the help of enough Repubs to take it all the way or it accomplishes nothing. Just throwing impeachment out there to a partisan vote is an empty gesture. I realize there are plenty of people who don't agree.

Even if they just serve up Cheney, that will be something, better than nothing. People have got it realize this goes way beyond politics. Bushco has been hiding behind politics for too long and getting away with crimes scott free. I'm tired of it.

Patience is a virtue, and I've still got a little bit left, just a LITTLE bit.

[Cameron27]

26. I don't like the message being spread about Conyers now,

that he's senile and "something's up" with him. It reminds me of the damaging rumors whispered by some catty little cliques in jr. high school.

[mzmolly]

27. "Jr. High,"

an apt analogy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Impeachment is not a recent fad with Conyers. He was in there pitching,

while others were gibbering about other things.

[mzmolly]

29. That's right.

He's not tossing his values out overnight for anyone.

[EFerrari]

30. Grassroots movements usually don't have choreographers.

They're messy, as we have seen. lol

[mzmolly]

32. Indeed, and successful movements need thoughtful leadership.

Thanks for the perspective.

[jpgray]

31. Hero-worship and absolutist positions on impeachment make some smart people look ridiculous

Great post.

[mzmolly]

34. Thank you for the

much appreciated reply. I thought I was going to get my DU ass kicked, ;) and instead I've gotten some support. That's always a pleasant surprise, huh?

Peace out.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

37. What you are calling "absolutist" can also be called "commitment."

If you don't ask for what you need, your chances of getting it are not slim but none. I'm all for respectful dialog and negotiation. But at some point, you either believe in yourself or you don't. You either work toward your goal in any way you can, or you don't.

None of this is easy for anyone.

[Virginia Dare]

49. Maybe that's where things broke down..

somehow we went beyond respectful dialog and negotiation. Perhaps people felt that one "side" whatever that was, was questioning the other's commitment?

I think in the end, everybody is working towards the same goal, it's just many of us disagree as to what is the best way to get there.

[EFerrari]

57. I think people are tired. As homely as that sounds, tired people

make mistakes. :(

[mmonk]

117. Those that wait to take their cues from politicians to form their opinions

I don't think understand this commitment and what's required sometimes. The constitution is under severe assault and we're in the middle of an historic fight for it's principles and they call us impeachment "absolutists". That in itself shows they don't where we all are or the danger or really understand what we are about.

[EFerrari]

131. No, they don't. And I'm much too old to trust politicians

to want to please them or to hope they can read my mind. :)

[H2O Man]

147. "No American, young

or old, must ever be denied the right to dissent. No minority must be muzzled. Opinion and protest are the life breath of democracy -- even when it blows heavy." -- LBJ 6-7-66

[Lerkfish]

39. that applies to both sides of the recent flap

[Virginia Dare]

46. Agreed, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around...

but isn't there always when it comes to politics and religion? ;-)

[quiet.american]

35. Did I make the half-hour deadline? You make a good point. n/t

[mzmolly]

38. 1/2 hour on DU has turned into double.

I'm sure you understand.

Ok really leaving now :yoiks:

:hi:

[quiet.american]

44. :)

:hi:

[smiley_glad_hands]

40. We're just "concern trolls" now.

K & R

[Virginia Dare]

41. Thanks mzmolly..I'm on your side here..

I'm fully in favor of investigating and eventually prosecuting these criminals. There are no guarantees this will be the end result, but I think the Democrats on the Hill are doing everything in their power up to this point in a very methodical fashion to see that justice is served. As we all know, or should know, the wheels of justice turn slowly.

Anybody who comes here and says that Nancy Pelosi isn't doing anything because she is somehow complicit with Bush earns their way straight to my ignore list, because they are a liar or a troll or both.

I know well of Nancy Pelosi's work and the people who work with her. I have closely watched people like John Conyers and Pat Leahy for years. They are committed Democrats, and I truly believe they are on our side. I will put my faith and trust in them to get to the bottom of what has been going on for the last seven years. They know well how the system works and what needs to be done. 99% of us here haven't got a clue.

[mzmolly]

62. Excellent points once again Virginia Dare.

:hi:

[warren pease]

42. Then why does Conyers do this bait and switch routine?

According to kpete, Conyers attended an event in San Diego on July 20 and stormed into the room bellowing:

"What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!"

Maybe he was referring to a couple of known pedophiles in attendance, but I somehow doubt it.

And then he starts weaseling about getting three more to sign Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney and bitches about Code Pink -- saying they're getting in the way of conducting the peoples' business, when the ONLY peoples' business that needs conducting these days is eliminating Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Hadley, Rice and a half dozen more top administration officials before they can do any more harm.

I don't get it. What's he playing at? Why manipulate people this way regarding arguably the most critical issue today in the US, and probably the world?

IMO, there are five pretty good reasons to impeach NOW:

1 Simple justice says they must be held accountable for their crimes, and punished to the full extent of the law.

2 Their totalitarian agenda must be exposed so that the American people understand the magnitude of their unprecedented criminality.

3 Somebody has to put a stop to their murderous agenda before they can nuke Iran or shed any more blood in Iraq or Afghanistan.

4 They must serve as an example of what will happen to the next right wing cabal if it tries to replace representative democracy with fascism.

5 Impeachment is perhaps our last means of self-defense. It’s getting a bit urgent, and all the pieces are in place to install a national security state (see recent presidential directives , patriot act, military commissions act, etc.), complete with martial law and starring Little Lord Hissyfit as dictator. They couldn't have spelled it out much clearer if they had outlined their plans on national TV using a Powerpoint presentation and flow charts.

But I guess it's the bait and switch that pisses me off most. He didn't need to mess with people like that. Why do you think he did?


wp

[Virginia Dare]

55. "Let's take these two guys out"..

I don't see this as bait and switch, since Conyers continues to investigate, continues to build a strong case against this administration. His actions today will hopefully ensure that Bush can no longer hide behind executive privilege. This is the best way I know of to take them out within the constraints of the constitution.

Maybe you thought he meant today or tomorrow, but I think it was political rhetoric. He probably figured the people in the audience knew that. Just because impeachment isn't happening right now, doesn't mean it will never happen. If they're going to do it, I prefer they do it right, unlike the Repubs did to Clinton.

[warren pease]

56. Political rhetoric...

I think it goes a bit beyond that when dealing with such an incendiary subject. Read this post and see if you don't agree:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kpete/3691

And then there's this:

"Also, Land Shark was here and talked to Conyers in the presence of others about the disastrous Holt bill as well as impeachment issues. Conyers stated that he would be going for inherent contempt - he declared that as his intent."

It's a big step from inherent contempt -- in which the House' Sergeant at Arms arrests the uncooperative witness and marches them directly from the committee room to a lockup in the basement. And he's backed off of that one, too, going with contempt instead, which is a more traditional but much more time-consuming way to compel testimony -- testimony that's needed NOW to bring these mad jackals under even limited control.

I applaud Conyers' efforts to take them down, and I think he's OK with his conscience about his actions thus far. But there is a certain urgency here: It's hardly a stretch to imagine BushCo launching an air war against Iran within a couple of months, these swine aren't going to leave Iraq as long as there's single drop of oil unaccounted for, and it's not silly paranoia to read those presidential directives as a very clear warning to dissenters that their continued attempts to exercise free speech will not be tolerated.

The only remaining lawful way to head off these disasters is impeachment. At the very least, it will consume time that they could otherwise use to refine war plans or plot ever-more thuggish methods to achieve domestic social control.

If there's another way to derail these bastards quickly besides impeachment, I'm certainly open to the possibilities. However, I'm not aware of any.


wp

[mzmolly]

66. I don't think that impeachment will be a "quick derailment."

I wish I did feel that way.

I feel that Conyers does intend to "take them out" wp, but as Virginia Dare has stated it won't happen "today." He's building a case, a foundation.

Thanks for the thoughtful and polite response. :hi:

[warren pease]

69. Yeah, but good golly, mzmolly...

I hate to recite my own talking points, but events are quickly spiraling out of control and unfortunately BushCo is still driving them. They are relentless, vicious and single-minded; they want control of any resource they can steal so they can hand it over to the people who put them in power and who will keep them there as long as they're good for the bottom line.

Unfortunately, despite the Dow tanking today, they're still incredibly useful contributors to net profits for weapons systems manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, for-profit medical institutions, petroleum and petrochemical companies, and a very long list of corporate beneficiaries of BushCo's largess through the tax code, lack of regulatory oversight and passage of laws that screw consumers in favor of corporate earnings. Soon, we can possibly add jackboot manufacturers to the list of industries benefiting from BushCo's continued presence.

So they need to be driven out, and yesterday is better than today, which is considerably better than tomorrow.

Or am I just weird for feeling a sense of rapidly approaching doom? Or at least acknowledging the probability that all that repressive legislation, all those signing statements, all those presidential directives add up to something besides good government?

Or that, having conned the senate 97 - 0 into sanctioning the official set of BushCo lies about the imminent threat posed by Iran, they're not going to take that as approval to launch bombers against yet another sovereign, oil-rich middle eastern country?

These events are real, they seem to be coming to a head, and BushCo badly needs another war -- the quick, no-casualties, B-52 kind -- to crank up the faux-patriotism machine and, by extension, get his approval numbers heading north.

There's also all the buzz about impending "terrorist" attacks, from Chertoff's gut to Paul Craig Roberts' piece predicting BushCo will unleash a series of deadly "false flag" events as an excuse to lock down the country and create the security state fascists always love best. Chertoff article here: http://www.alternet.org/story/56941/

And Roberts' article here: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2214.shtml

Anyway, off the soapbox now... gently, getting older, don't break anything... whew!


wp

[mzmolly]

74. I think we've stopped the "doom" by electing Democrats.

They're trumpeting the terror threat so we can continue the war in Iraq. I'm not going to go into a long diatribe, but to answer your question, I don't feel a sense of doom, not any longer.

Peace wp.

[warren pease]

153. I'm glad you're feeling less threatened, and...

interestingly enough, this thread popped into my mind seconds after I woke up this morning. As I went through my thoughts on the urgency of getting rid of these piggies before they can do any more harm, I realized that their fear-mongering has got me, too. Not the way they intended, since I don't fear terrorists or brown people with lots of oil under their feet as I'm supposed to, but I fear BushCo as I'd fear any other group of sociopathic murderers.

So I figured I'd try and understand the fear and compartmentalize it so it doesn't take over, as it seems to have done with the poor people who shudder and run for the duct tape every time Chertoff's gut rumbles. Not to say these bastards aren't deadly dangerous, to us as individuals and to the republic as well as the rest of the planet, but they're also incompetent bunglers most of the time, which makes them simultaneously loathsome and hilarious. So I'd prefer to concentrate on their hilarious side.

Anyway, just random thoughts on fear and coping in a time of high risk and limitless governmental malevolence.


And peace back atcha, mzmolly.



wp

[mzmolly]

167. What an interesting post Warren Pease,

we are afraid aren't we? Their tactics have been sadly effective.

Thanks for sharing this.

:hug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

114. He closed the door on impeachment on Monday

He not only said no but never. To cling to a false hope that Conyers will somehow change his mind and turn around and impeach these monsters is delusional.

No. It's never going to happen. Not if Conyers is the one you are waiting for to do it.

He is going to play with them and make them as uncomfortable as he can. But impeachment is off the table. he made that very clear.

[mzmolly]

120. He closed the door on being openly bullied into a time frame and a statement on the record.

That's my opinion, and I fully understand that considering my point about the media cheapening impeachment had he said "yes we're going for it." Answer me this, if he had told Cindy and co. "we're going to do this, be patient" could he have trusted them to STFU about it? I don't think so P2b. And, that factors into what was said IMHO.

I doesn't make sense that people think he should have told them what he intends to do and when. We didn't barge into Fitzgerald's office and say "charge Libby or else, we want answers NOW" after a three month investigation.

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

137. Yes he could have trusted themto stfu about it

Again, you don't understand, he had reason to know he could trust them.

[mzmolly]

138. Had they not announced it before hand, I might feel that way.

I guess only time will tell. :shrug:

[TheOtherMaven]

142. Starving tigers

don't take well to someone waving a juicy raw steak and then telling them they can have it "later, if at all".

Didn't Conyers realize he was dealing with a pack of starving tigers? :D

[mzmolly]

143. LOL, "starving and vocal tigers."

;) On edit, welcome. :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

113. I think the "two guys" Conyers was talking about

were Meirs and Bolten.

[LittleClarkie]

48. Thanks Molly

K&R

[AtomicKitten]

50. Agreed.

The bellicosity of some may actually be pushing impeachment to the back burner.

[mzmolly]

104. Yes.

Agreed!

[Silver Gaia]

51. K & R. Thanks, mzmolly. n/t

[Cameron27]

52. I had to come back to recommend!

[omega minimo]

54. I support democracy, but I do not support the tactics used by some to destroy it.

And what's the point of THIS tactic to divide those on the same side? :evilfrown:

[mondo joe]

58. Thank you MZMOLLY! NT

[mitchtv]

60. I support impeachment, but I do not

support the venom and vitiol directed at Dems> Oh, I think you said that.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. mzmolly, with all due respect (and I do respect you, in fact i like you and your posts)

Not expecting justice now, but at sometime when our public servants decide to get around to it is exactly what is dangerous about the mindset taking hold in America today.

If you expect the Dem congress to guarantee your rights you are in for a rude awakening. All political parties exist to gain power and to exercise power.

The constitution is the guarantor of our rights, and nowhere in the constitution is any political party mentioned.

It is impossible to know the personal motivations and intentions of John Conyers or any of the demonstrators. But to assume that Conyers has your best interests in mind is dangerous. His motivation just might be to leave bush/chaney in office to better gain greater political power in the 08 election.

Neither the demonstrators nor Conyers got away for free here. There is always a price to pay for placing demands on power and their is a price to pay for ignoring the will of the people, the demands placed on power.

Your objection with the tactics of the demonstrators isn't new. In Montgomery, when Rosa Parks refused to obey the policy and refused to sit in the back of the bus, every other person on that bus was caused delay, discomfort, and may have been late to work or an important appointment. Children may have been left home alone, people may have been fired for their tardiness, white and black. In fact, many editorials and lttrs to the editors and speeches made those same points. People said, "Why didn't they just get a civil rights lawyer and negotiate with the city bus system?

Parks' demonstration had been planned with the knowledge, help, and support of the
NAACP. It was a demand on power. It didn't stop there either. Using the publicity and the example of Parks civil disobedience, the NAACP launched a boycott that shut down the bus system, (and further inconvenienced, caused economic distress, and hindered people's ability to make use of public transportation, both for blacks and whites.) They almost bankrupted the bus system (which put a burden on taxpayers of every color) before there demands on power were met.

This wasn't without a huge political price for the demonstrators and their allies. For one thing, the civil disobedience tactics of the NAACP and other groups caused a transforming backlash in the form of Nixon's Southern strategy. The South, always a bulwark of Democratic party power, almost overnight switched from a reliable Democratic vote to a reliable Republican stronghold. This led, in large part, to the Republicans holding the White House for most of the rest of the 20th century and beyond. Reagan effectively expanded this backlash into the Northern rust belt as well.

Toward the end of Martin's life, he turned his campaign for civil rights into a campaign against imperialism. he made the connection between racism and the war in Vietnam. He saw the war was sucking up resources that weren't then going to the poor. And that's when they killed him.

Many people said they supported Martin's goals, but they just couldn't support his tactics which they saw as counter productive.

One interesting parallel between Sheehan and King is they both had a strong claim to moral high ground. King through his ministry and his appeal to Christian themes of charity and brotherhood. And Sheehan, a mother's loss of her son in an unjust imperialistic war. And they both transcended their original scope of demands to include a bigger picture on social justice and transformation. King ended up taking on the military industrial complex.

So I guess my questions are this.

1. Should the NAACP, SNCC, and MLK have instead attempted to negotiate and been prepared to wait as long as it took for the powers that be to eventually come around to their side, given the backlash? Should they have kept the media away? Or was civil disobedience the fastest way to go?

2. Should they have been willing to settle for far less of there demands for equality in order to appear more reasonable to the general public and not to alienate potential allies?

3. Was their struggle sending a mixed message when they did civil disobedience around seating positions on a bus, eating at lunch counter where the food was lousy anyway, the service was lousy, or should they have just argued for the voting rights act and not have confused the issue?

4. Should MLK have supported Johnson on Vietnam, (or at least not publicly rebuked him) and should he have not planned to march on Washington and stay there until the troops were brought home, right into Johnson's turf? Since Johnson had so strongly supported MLK on civil rights for blacks for so long?

[mzmolly]

64. John, I like you too.

But this is not a matter of "getting around to it" it's a matter of building a solid criminal case. One that appeals to the "jury."

Also, I just can not compare Cindy Sheehan or her "struggle" to that of Rosa Parks or MLK, I'm sorry about that as I know that you see her in this light. As for those who disagreed with MLK you're right. Some wanted him to take to the streets with clubs, to use violence and threats. He refused as does John Conyers.

Peace and thanks so much for taking the time for a thoughtful reply. I am certain you spoke for many.

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

68. My point wasn't that Cindy and MLK are equivalent. My point was that they

both use the tactics of peaceful civil disobedience and peaceful demonstration. And both were critized for not moving slower, for making waves, and for alienating possible allies through the tactics of civil disobedience and demonstration.

Your "strong criminal case" I see as an excuse as to why the powers that be (That would be the Dem controlled house) aren't moving on Impeachment. John Conyers already put together, with the folks from Afterdowning Street (Cindy et al) a detailed list of crimes. Investigating them from a criminal stand point in an impeachment inquirery would be the fastest and most effective way of putting together a case. There is a good reason that it's called an inquiery. It's because they inquire into the evidence of possibly impeachable crimes.

Neither King, Sheehan, nor Conyers advocate the tactic of to "take to the streets with clubs, to use violence and threats."

Although I'm sure all three have made non-violent threats at one time or other. Conyers has threatened contempt charges for non-compliance; King threatened a poor peoples march on DC that would stay camped in the capitol until the Nam war was stopped; and Sheehan has threatened to run for Pelosi's seat. All threats -all non-violent - all intended to place demands on power.

Peace to you too mzmolly. You are a worthy debate opponant. :)

[mzmolly]

75. I don't think Cindy's "impeach by X or else" was particularilly peaceful.

But, I understand your perspective fully and I respect where YOU'RE coming from.

:hi:

[bettyellen]

90. or what? she'll do something violent? LOL?!? You got nothing, so you hint at darkness...

and it's such disingenuous crap, really.

[mzmolly]

93. Hint at darkness?

Good gawd, move on.

[bettyellen]

94. like the clubs she was trying to convince conyers to use, LOL... or running for office

same thing, right?
:rofl:

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

103. just because i busted you for fear mongering against peace activists you have to call names?

that's not very nice. and does nothing to support your arguement. i guess you've run out of steam and insults are all you have left.
it's kinda sad to see you to stoop this low.
:cya:

[mzmolly]

107. Bettyellen

I don't mean to be hurtful, I felt as though you have judged what I've said without actually reading what that is.

I apologize for being bitchy, that was uncalled for.

[bettyellen]

119. you should have maybe actually adressed my post- how your tactic was Nixonian as

well as O Liellyesque with this violent protester meme you were pushing.
Welll, now you have two things to be embarrassed about.
:hi:

[mzmolly]

121. What's funny is that you were "insulted" by my comments and at the same time you liken me to Nixon

and O'Reilly? Goodness, we're done. This is completely unproductive.

Cheers.

[bettyellen]

124. i comment on your statements, you made a personal insult. and you avoid dealing with my post again

how many ways can you think up to avoid being called on your BS?

[mzmolly]

125. Geeze if this is being "called out" I'm in great shape, thanks.

:eyes:

[bettyellen]

127. LOL, avoid actually adressing your gaffe at all costs, O Lielly taught you well!!

and agin with the personal slights. so your apology was as full of it as the "violent" protest fear mongering.
way to go! you have a future in politics. LOL.

[mzmolly]

128. Well perhaps you can post my gaffe in a reponse, and then I'll address it?

Got an exact quote, or just more absurdity?

[bettyellen]

129. and BTW Nixon;s people invented this "violent war protester" meme you've promoted here

proud of yourself?

[mzmolly]

130. Where did I say violent war protester? What I said was that MLK was insulted for

peaceful protest. Good grief, lay off the Nixon shit and you might actually absorb what I've said. I have protested THIS war. BEFORE it began and after.

[bettyellen]

140. Doh! who asked Conyers to use "clubs, violence and threats" ?!?!

must be your invisible friend.
are you really having this much trouble following this discussion, or are you just trying to forget?
:hi:

[mzmolly]

141. I addressed that when I said it was an analogy, remember?

nt

[bettyellen]

146. hyperbole? slander? yes....look up analogy, and own up to your BS

:hi:
an analogy, means something is LIKE something else.

so again, who was encouraging Conyers to take to the street and use weapons? what in the world is that analogous to?

It's not. It's spreading an old RW chestnut used to support facist oppression. And ee, that's not an insult to you, it's towards the exagerations you use to demonize progressives. You demonize progressives as an end to a means.
And if the shoe fits, wear it.
Analogy my ass.

[mzmolly]

148. "Analogy" defined

drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect; "the operation of a computer presents and interesting analogy to the working of the brain"..

As for the "demonizing progressives" claim, I am one. Those using propaganda to demonize progressives are David Swanson and Cindy Sheehan unless you no longer consider Conyers a "progressive?"

Have you read this article by Swanson? http://www.democrats.com/node/13762

Note where he asserts that Conyers is:

afraid of fox news
is a fascist enabler

Did you see the key quote in his "hyperbole?"

"What was Conyers' objection to moving forward on impeachment now?"

Did you know all the hubub about Conyers and impeachment was because he said he would not impeach NOW?

Swanson - a former Naderite, and Sheehan a "closet libertarian" are disingenuous bullies not progressives.

Thanks for kicking the thread, I delight in informing MORE people about this bullshit.

[bettyellen]

162. so peaceful protest is just like violence according to you. it's a bit twisted.

[mzmolly]

164. No, demanding Conyers impeach today or else, is akin to telling MLK how to protest.

Got it?

[bettyellen]

169. actually no... you didn;t mention MLK, you mentioned pressure to get violent, using clubs

nice try!
:hi:

[mzmolly]

173. I did mention MLK, it's not a matter of 'trying' here is my EXACT QUOTE.

John Q compared MLK to Sheehan and I replied ...

"...I just can not compare Cindy Sheehan or her "struggle" to that of Rosa Parks or MLK, I'm sorry about that as I know that you see her in this light. As for those who disagreed with MLK you're right. Some wanted him to take to the streets with clubs, to use violence and threats. He refused as does John Conyers."

You're wrong - again. But watching you "wiggle and worm" is interesting, I'll await your latest twist.

Edited to end italics.

[bettyellen]

72. who asked Conyers to use "clubs, violence and threats" ?!?!

[mzmolly]

73. Conyers refuses to change his methods of seeking justice.

It's an analogy. :hi:

[bettyellen]

80. it's actually very misleading if you ask me. no one asked for those specific tactics did they?

it's a gross insinuation and outright lie!
why do you slander progressive activists? you know this is the sort of BS Bushco spreads about peace activists in order to engage in unwarranted mass arrrests, don;t you? Congrats on helping the facists with their bullshit meme!
:hi:

[mzmolly]

82. Totally ridiculous.

:hi: G'day.

[bettyellen]

87. no you're framing the argument exactly like Bill O Reilley does...

schmearing good progressives with BS exagerrations and fear mongering......and it's sad to see.
:puke:

[mzmolly]

89. Gosh, so we agree. Smearing John Conyers and making threats against Pelosi

is "sad to see." :puke: to you as well.

[bettyellen]

92. the threat to run in a race is a non violent protest, deal with it honestly for a change

instead of engaging in this desperate attempt to instill terror against pleaceful activists.
it's as pathetic as it is dishonest.
c you in september, when i get to ask you where all those repugs who've switched sides are. :rofl:

[mzmolly]

95. Oh, so she's not serious about winning, it's all about "protest?"

Gotcha.

I'll see you when Conyers launches impeachment hearings, which won't be because of Cindy Sheehan. However, remember my note above about how the media will spin it, because I'll be certain to remind you.

:hi: Take care.

[bettyellen]

96. doing the right thing matters to some people, not so much to you, not so much to many Dems

who are happier if we are at war in Nov of 08.
Yes, the media will spin it exactly how you are spinning Cindy. How nice for all of you.

[mzmolly]

98. I believe I stated above that doing the right thing is important?

But don't let the facts get in the way of arguing with yourself or anything.

[bettyellen]

102. so important that maybe we shouldn;t even try, yes, I know that's where we disagree.

[mzmolly]

110. This post proves you did not read my OP.

:hi:

[bettyellen]

118. you said "if" we move to impeach. for many it's a moral imperative and you refuse to see it.

i read your OP, it's clear we differ.
You just prefer to believe people can't read otherwise they'd agree with you.

[mzmolly]

122. Here's what else I said:

"I support impeachment"

"I think there are many here like me, who wish to see a thoughtful deliberate process leading to the impeachment of Bush Co."

"I do feel that it is an essential and serious matter, and as such, we have to "get it right" when we venture down that path. We have to be taken seriously when/if that does happen."

"impeachment is about holding THEM accountable."

"Anyone who is serious about impeachment would walk into Conyers office with people from all sides of the political isle without the media attention. Bruce Fein, John Dean and H20Man ;) and others who have made very compelling cases for impeachment need to have a place at the table. We need to have a serious discussion with respected people from every political stripe to take on this issue. Leaders who are actually concerned about accomplishing impeachment would bring those groups together, not make outrageous demands and alienate the ONE man who can actually do something about it."

My position is clear, but as I've said, WE'RE done. Have the last word.

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

150. bettyellen, you know where you will be in september

And we both know where your little debate partner will be as well. One of you will be in the streets trying to save our democracy and the other will be on her computer defending cowardly Dems.

:hi:

[Anita Garcia]

156. ding, ding, dong!

[mzmolly]

165. You mean she'll be marching with "Go Cindy" signs

and defending her increasingly convoluted jibberish, while I'm supporting Democrats who are closing in on the Bush administration.

Let me know what "street" your on in September huh? As for me, I'm involved with our local peace organization and believe it or not have "taken to the streets" against this war.



You see, I too, can type and walk.

[bettyellen]

170. and your signs will say, "No Hurry, We can Wash the Blood off my Hands" like, whenever ...

when it's a better time for the Republicans to join us in trying to end the war. At their convience, because the Republicans and Fox News are calling the tune,

[mzmolly]

174. And your's will say "I confuse impeachment with ending blood shed."

:eyes:

[bettyellen]

178. the issues are intwined for many, because it is only bush that wants to stay in iraq

and it'll be next to impossible to end it. and since the war is so umpopular, it makes impeachment a life and death matter- literally.
perfectly legitamte connection, that's why everyone except for you is making it.

[mzmolly]

180. If it's only Bush than my point about September is not moot is it?

As for the "legitimate" connection, there is NONE.

Experts like Nichols, Fein and Turley have suggested that we not confuse impeachment with ending the war. AS I stated in my post above, you say "impeachment ends the war" yet when Conyers points out "we don't have the votes," you claim "it's not about the war," I think you'll have to make up your collective "minds" eh?

[bettyellen]

184. except that confusing impeachment with something more popular- ending the war-

doesn;t hurt the struggle fopr impeachment.

and the lies to the american people are, whether you like it or not, the biggest reason why people want him out. you can split hairs, but the court of public opinion isn;t all that interested in t5he distinctions you are making. No matter how clever you feel aping Turley. :hi:

[mzmolly]

186. The public is interested in ending the war, more than they are in impeachment at this time.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm dealing in reality.

[bettyellen]

187. bingo. that's what i said. but the issues are very intewined, and there's no rational

reason to un intwine them. the reason for wanting impeachment is largely to do with lyiing us into war. and that's perfectlly valid. we may get him on other crimes, like capone and taxes, but the war is a biggie. people you label as "confused" are merely acknkowledging that.
support for impeachment will not prolong our involvemnt in iraq. and it should hasten the end of our involvement unless dems want to own the war themselves.
the war will lose it's number one cheerleader- which will be a huge step. there is nothing so mutually exclusive about the two issues- they bolster each other and fuel the outrage. and that's a good thing.

[mzmolly]

188. The reasons for wanting impeachment are not to be confused with what it will accomplish.

Good Night Betty Ellen

[bettyellen]

189. .... what it SHOULD set in motion IS an end to the war- unless the Dems want it

toppling the president would have major impact in this regard, don't kid yourself.
you have all this faith in a dumbass report, but impeachment, pffft. Nada, huh?

[mzmolly]

190. No one has explained how impeachment leads to an end to the war.

What does lead to that end is the exhaustion that Americans have with the war today and not taking that issue out of the news.

[Me.]

71. Most Excellent Post

With all due respect

[Anita Garcia]

67. I think you have a "thing" for successful grand standers

You seem to start a lot of threads about impeachment and Cindy Sheehan.
I think you have a "thing" for her.

She's good at getting media attention.
Politicians respond to media attention...emails, letters, petitions, posts on DU...not so much.

If you don't like what is going on, you know you could show up and anti-protest those that you find offensive protesting the elected officials.
Groups and people do it all the time.

If you think people should be protesting at Republican offices, you could do that.

If you think people should be showing support at the offices of elected Democrats, you could do that too.

There are a lot of things that you could actually DO out in public.
Now, whether or not you or anyone you know will actually get any media attention while doing it remains to be seen.

Good luck with that.
I look forward to reading about you in the paper.

Until then, I'll stick with what I've been doing out in public.
I got a lot of my "successful grandstander" ideas from my husband, the NAACP, and the people at Camp Casey 1. So far, their "tactics" seem to be working great. Feel free to follow our lead.

[mzmolly]

79. I start lots of threads about Cindy and impeachment? I've started about three threads in two months

on the subject of impeachment? I believe I've mentioned Cindy in two of them? She has placed herself in the front of the impeachment movement, I expect we'll discuss her in that context again, given that's the case?

She's good at getting media attention.
Politicians respond to media attention...emails, letters, petitions, posts on DU...not so much.

Lots of people can get media attention, it's how one uses that attention that is key.

[lonestarnot]

115. Not one of your hot topics for discussion then only fucking 3?

[mzmolly]

123. Uhm

come again?

[proud2BlibKansan]

151. Excellent observations!

I was starting to wonder if I was the only one . . .

[LWolf]

70. I support evicting republicans,

but I do not support the methods many of my fellow Democrats do to achieve that.

What is new about similar goals with conflicting methods?

What is more important? The goal, or the fight about how we get there?

[mmonk]

76. Mine is just saving the constitution.

I don't even care if they strike a deal and bush gets to be a constitutional monarch complete with a crown for the rest of his term if it saves our rights and heritage.

[LWolf]

78. You make a good point.

Preserving the constitution should not be a partisan issue, a partisan effort, or a partisan goal.

[mzmolly]

81. Agreed, and that's a point I attempted to make above.

:hi:

[LWolf]

83. Point taken.

[mzmolly]

85. Thanks L

:hi:

[Phredicles]

77. I do worry that there's too much deliberateness and not enough speed in

our congress' approach. This is a great thread, though, in any case.

[mzmolly]

84. Thanks, I understand that worry.

I think the founding fathers wanted to be certain that we didn't impeach merely for political reasons, thus there is a "slow/tedious" process?

That said, Republican managed to have their witch hunt and Clinton unfortunately provided them with the opportunity. I still get pissed at Clinton, not for "cheating" as that's none of MY business, but for putting himself in that position. :(

[BlooInBloo]

88. Spoken like a true member of the party of slavery.

[mzmolly]

99. LOL

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

105. OK -- I'll accept this theory of what's going on -- let's see how it holds up . .. .

However, were Cindy and Ray McGovern actually harassing Rep. Conyers the other day?
And, didn't they pay a price for it -- in being arrested?

Personally, I think the anti-war movement without Cindy Sheehan is poorer for it.
As she has pointed out, she's been doing this for 3 years now at great personal expense . . .
yet, we hear repeatedly -- even from Democrats here -- that she's a media whore. {????]

I think the truth of all of this may be somewhere in the middle --
We have to watch and be concerned about what the Democrats are doing --
that means its leadership, as well, on a daily basis.

We have all increased our phone calls and contact -- and I think that's a really good thing.
This website is invaluable for anyone who wants to be really informed; anything new is posted pretty much the moment it hits!

Many of us see the Libby Pardon and the Cheney/Bush nervous breakdown in announcing that neither of them are part of the Executive Branch as a need to move faster --

Naturally there will be many here who will resent Cindy Sheehan's run against Pelosi --
I would have preferred that she find another open Democratic CA seat and run alongside Pelosi --
where she could have voiced her own views. And maybe even made it into Congress to continue the anti-war fight and the fight to impeach Bush and reclaim the Constitution.

But, let me also suggest, that I think the level of animosity for Cindy Sheehan is somewhat out of balance with what she has done so far.

[mzmolly]

111. I don't think my post was loaded with animosity for Cindy Sheehan?

What I tried to communicate was that I believe in a different approach. Cindy Sheehan is human, I understand that.

[BlooInBloo]

126. You're either with her or against her, to a certain sect.

[mzmolly]

133. I'm coming to that conclusion.

:hi:

[creeksneakers2]

108. You've been a voice of calm and reason

throughout this entire uproar.

[mzmolly]

112. Thanks, that's VERY kind.

:hi:

[mmonk]

132. I don't think people like explanations by the impeachment crowd.

That's why we get categorized in short order and these threads become very popular (no offense to you mzmolly).

[mzmolly]

134. I'm not offended mmonk,

people have enjoyed my thread for the most part and the response has been positive overall. Thanks for the reply.

:hi:

[mmonk]

135. As always.

:hi:

[Zomby Woof]

136. ZombyKicked

:kick:

[mzmolly]

139. Thanks.

:)

[mzmolly]

144. Adding this to the record. The impeach NOW crowd would settle for no less than NOW.

http://www.democrats.com/node/13762

First of all, note the few actual quotes from John Conyers? Also note the word NOW?

What was Conyers' objection to moving forward on impeachment now? Well, he said, if he were to do that Fox News would go after him and accuse him of being partisan. I kid you not. The Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is basing his decisions on whether a Republican cable TV station would approve. As Cindy Sheehan told me outside the jail last night: "If I based my decisions on Fox, I would never do anything."

After reading this, it is my belief that these people went into Conyers office and demanded he impeach NOW, when he attempted to explain that doing so would cheapen the issue as it would appear partisan vs. legit, they refused to listen and launched the smear campaign. Pathetic.

[Usrename]

145. Have we handed the media take a convenient "out?"

The media is going to make it up and lie, no matter what actions anyone takes. If Cindy et al were not there as an intimidating "left fringe group", then they would just paint Conyers himself as a "left fringe lunatic."

It's what they do.

[mzmolly]

149. Not if Conyers pulls the dirty laundry out of the closet so the stench is

undeniable to anyone with a nose. That's the plan, I presume.

[Swamp Rat]

152. IMPEACH NOW!!

:hi:



My 2¢ :)

[Anita Garcia]

157. Careful

Careful Swamp Rat or you're going to be labled as one of "these people".
And yes, we need to impeach NOW.
If not now, when?

[Swamp Rat]

159. I'm one of 'these people' who cannot wait for impeachment.

You know, someone who is unemployed, uninsured, living in someone else's house behind broken levees, wondering if the next hurricane will finish them off for good.

Something like one of 'these people':




Some of us just cannot wait any longer.

[Anita Garcia]

160. I'm with you.

North of the Lake.
Windy here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

161. Our soldiers can't wait either

[mzmolly]

168. Again, someone wrongly equates impeachment with ending the war.

Which, I imagine is why Conyers felt it necessary to remind some that "we don't have the votes."

[bettyellen]

171. Wow, look ... so many people doing that and not wanting to wait on Republicans or Fox News for cues

What's that aboput? They must not understand how an unprecedented number of Republicans are suddenly going to betray their party.
September is going to be so cool!
:hi:

[mzmolly]

172. Ah so "impeachment" does not equal betrayal, but voting to end an unpopular war

does. Gotcha. :hi: Indeed, September is going to be interesting.

[bettyellen]

176. either one is a betrayal of such magnitude the SS Bush needs to be half sunken before them rats

will jump off. if they haven;t yet, polite meetings and a report that will probably show great progress ain;t going to motivate the Republicans.
But you can wait on them if you want Mz, Joe Lieberman will keep you company. :hi:

[mzmolly]

177. " the SS Bush needs to be half sunken before them rats will jump off"

so you feel the ship is half sunken NOW do you? As for Lieberman, I think he's is much more fond of the contrary reactionaries, who make him appear somewhat reasonable than he is of me.

As for ships, Conyers is slowly poking holes in the "SS Bush" let him finish the job.

[bettyellen]

179. You have fun waiting on the Repbnlicans to do our dirty work, it's a lovely fantasy if nothing else.

and be sure to keep a "concern" on the Fox coverage too, LOL!

[mzmolly]

181. This from a person who claims impeachment will end the war.

Interesting, yet not surprising.

[bettyellen]

183. better than waiting for republicans to abandon Bush first , LOL. That's a strategy alright....

and i'm sure it's going to pan out for you. as soon as that bush appointee comes out with his honest and scathing report, on time...
yeap, that's the ticket. The republicans will deliver us from bush...

[mzmolly]

185. The Republicans have to help deliver the troops out of Iraq if they like their jobs.

However, it is YOU that suggests that we have enough Republicans to "deliver us from Bush," but keep responding as you're revealing your self and the thought process (or lack thereof) of your minions.

[omega minimo]

163. "These people" who understand what's at stake

:hug: Swampy

[The Stranger]

154. By any means necessary.

Wake up Nancy. Tell her to put impeachment back on the table. Do it now.

[EFerrari]

166. Trying here in the district and won't give up. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

175. Your serious discussion includes your insane bullshit about Cindy Sheehan?

Unfuckingbelivable.

[mzmolly]

182. What insane bullshit do you take issue with, exactly?

:hi: What's Unfuckingbelievable is that someone could suggest that WE belong to "the party of slavery" smear John Conyers, and have such undying/unquestioning devotion HERE. That's what's unfuckingbelievable.