DN!: Should Impeachment Be Off The Table? Debate With Cindy Sheehan, Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern...

[babylonsister]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/144218

Should Impeachment Be Off The Table? A Debate With Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan, Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern, and Democratic Strategist Dan Gerstein

Peace mom Cindy Sheehan has returned from a brief rest to take part in a growing movement for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Impeachment activists have focused efforts on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judiciary Chair John Conyers who have declared impeachment off the table. The Democratic leaders call the impeachment drive a distraction that would hinder chances at winning the 2008 elections. Cindy Sheehan joins us for a debate along with ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern and Democratic Strategist Dan Gerstein. At least forty-five people were arrested on Capitol Hill Monday in a sit-in calling on Democrats to pursue the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The demonstrators were jailed after refusing to leave the office of House Judiciary Chair John Conyers following a meeting with him. Conyers had floated the idea of impeachment last year. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the talk during the mid-term elections when she declared that impeachment is off the table.

Among those arrested Monday -- Cindy Sheehan. It was less than two months ago that she announced she was stepping down as the face of this country’s anti-war movement. She cited the draining lifestyle and the lack of public will for ending the Iraq war.

Well, Cindy Sheehan is back. She arrived in Washington Sunday following a two-week cross-country march dubbed the Journey for Humanity and Accountability. The tour began in Crawford, Texas. It was there she had set up her peace camp next to President Bush’s Crawford estate two summers ago. She named it Camp Casey, in honor of her son Casey Sheehan, killed in Iraq in April 2004.

Shortly before her arrest on Monday, Cindy Sheehan confirmed she’ll challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her Congressional seat in the next election unless Pelosi agrees to begin the impeachment process against President Bush. Although it is rarely discussed in the corporate media, a grassroots movement for impeachment has been rapidly building.

A recent poll by the American Research Group found that about 45 percent of the country supports the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Meanwhile on Capitol Hill 15 co-sponsors have signed on to Congressman Dennis Kucinich's bill of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. And more than 80 towns and cities have passed pro-impeachment resolutions.

* Cindy Sheehan. Co-founder of Gold Star Families For Peace. Her son, Casey, was killed in Baghdad on April 4, 2004.

* Dan Gerstein. Democratic strategist and political commentator. He is a regular columnist at the website Politico.

* Ray McGovern. Twenty-seven-year career analyst with the CIA. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He has been calling for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to be impeached and visited Congressman Conyers earlier this week to urge him to support impeachment.

[mmonk]

1. Thanks for that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I listened

It was great. Catch it if you can.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. K&R

[babylonsister]

4. On Now. nt

[EFerrari]

5. 45% approval, 80 town or city measures, 15 sponsors for

DKs bill.

[EFerrari]

6. A lot of the evidence for impeachment was presented to

the American people and they still re elected George Bush -- Dem strategist.

NO WE DIDN'T! :mad:

[babylonsister]

9. I caught that; but I had my doubts about that

Gerstein character when I heard a) he writes for Politico, and b) he worked for Liberman's campaign.

[EFerrari]

10. He's actually much better than I thought he would be!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

7. Why do Swanson and Sheehan continue to allow a dishonest characterization of what Conyers said to be

promoted time and time again?

In this article by David Swanson (recapping the the notorious impeachment conversation)
he says Conyers won't move on impeachment "NOW." He also never quotes Conyers directly with the exception of these four words "going to play politics."

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

One key quote: "What was Conyers' objection to moving forward on impeachment now?"

This entire charade was about impeachment now, just as I suspected.

DU is being played and I don't like it, and I intend to inform until I get an EXACT quote from Conyers that indicates "impeachment is off the table now and in the future."

On edit, it was also a stepping stone for Cindy's campaign announcement, I gotta say I'm impressed from that standpoint. They used Conyers brilliantly.

[EFerrari]

8. Why not call his office? They should be able to answer that question.

[mzmolly]

12. Talking with them now.

"Conyers has not said he would NEVER impeach" ... "the off the table comment was made by Nancy Pelosi" ... "Conyers will continue to do his job..."

Now, would you mind getting clarification from Swanson on this?

[EFerrari]

14. Transcript of Conyers on Amy's show 2/2007:

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

REP. JOHN CONYERS: The reason I am not, notwithstanding my fiery rhetoric at the rally, which I thought was quite appropriate, by the way, and I don't retract, we're firing -- on November 7, we fired all the Republicans we could find that are supporting President Bush. Next year in November, we're going to get hired to do the job of leading this country with a Democratic president and with a stronger House and Senate majority. You know, a one-senate majority lead is not much of a majority. Fifteen-vote change in the House would erase the advantage that we have. And quite frankly, any impeachment proceeding that would go forward without taking out the Vice President and the President, to me, would be a waste of time. We don't have the luxury to impeach this president and this vice president. We have the responsibility to stop the war in Iraq, and I think it's proceeding along sound lines, and then we will be able to deal with Katrina, the domestic under-funding of everything from healthcare to housing to job creation, to re-entry of former felons. All the things that need to be done have to be taken care of. A $2 trillion debt is what we are paying to stay in Iraq. We've got to stop that financial hemorrhaging as a first responsibility in the Congress.

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

No wonder I'm confused. :shrug:

[mzmolly]

16. Which to me says "I want to build a strong case."

And quite frankly, any impeachment proceeding that would go forward without taking out the Vice President and the President, to me, would be a waste of time.

They will let the chips fall where they may let the people (on all sides of the isle) rise up and demand impeachment. They are not going to announce impeachment as the "goal" Pelosi has said that.

That said, statement like this are worthy of question, and I appreciate a direct quote.

[leftchick]

11. calling John Conyer's office for an exact quote might help

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

13. Just did "Conyers has not said he will NEVER impeach ... the off the table comment was made by

Pelosi..."

[EFerrari]

15. See my post above. The problem isn't, to my mind, that

David is misleading anyone. The problem is that Mr. Conyers has said different things at different times, including what his office said this morning. Maybe he could issue a clarifying statement.

[mzmolly]

17. I dont know that he wants to give these people more attention?

I wouldn't.

[EFerrari]

18. What about those other people, the million people who signed

that petition? And, what about us?

[mmonk]

19. Yep.

Many of us are just called citizens.

[mzmolly]

20. Call and ask for an official statement if you like?

Personally, I hope he'll remain above the fray.

[phone]

[EFerrari]

28. The idea would not be to continue the conflict but to clear up

the communication, right?

[mzmolly]

42. I don't think that's possible

personally. Some people in this vocal "fight" appear to seek conflict.

[leftchick]

21. "these people"??

that would include myself and a million others who signed the petition. He ignores us to his and the democratic party's peril.

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

22. I signed the petition as well.

By "these people" I obviously meant the people who are mis-characterizing his intentions and calling him a "fascist enabler."

I'm out have a nice day leftchick. :hi:

[madfloridian]

27. So you are saying the party is in peril? Gotcha.

This week Conyers, Pelosi, and Dean have been blasted to hell here.

That is what is going on...hurt the Democrats.

[EFerrari]

30. Dr. Dean won't impeach either?!

lol

[madfloridian]

32. What your group is doing is not funny.

I am not laughing. Lots of others are not either.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

38. I have very little support here at all.

I do not know what you mean.

That is not what I am about.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. He told them to focus on the November 08 elections

He said that is when we impeach bushco.

I sure took that to mean it is off the table and he is not putting it back on.

[mzmolly]

46. He told "THEM" to focus on the elections, he did not say that he would not do his job

P2b.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. From those who met with him on Monday:

"he refused to put impeachment back on the table" - Rev Yearwood

"Conyers told us what we needed to do was to vote out the enablers (Republicans) in 08" - Cindy Sheehan

"When I raised James Madison’s role in crafting a Constitution that mentions impeachment no fewer than six times, he replied: Madison did not say Conyers has to impeach every one. Why, if I had to impeach everyone for high crimes and misdemeanors, that’s all my committee would have time to do.

<skip>

"How about just Bush and Cheney, we suggested.

"Conyers protested that he would need 218 votes in the House and complained that the votes are not there. His priorities showed through in his loud lament that if he fell short of the 218 votes, the Republicans and Fox News would have a field day." - Ray McGovern

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=

[mzmolly]

67. Still no quotes, just paraphrased schmear.

More from Afterdowningstreet:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25098

The internal strife on the left probably doesn’t make much difference to the chances for impeachment, he says. That’s because, Nichols explains, no one leader in the House can make impeachment happen.

“John Conyers wants to impeach, there’s no question of that....

“We’re exactly where we’ve been all along, which is this process is going to have to go member by member, getting them to sign on. John Conyers would be absolutely delighted if he were forced to take up impeachment.”

The notion that John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken, Nichols says. “The way Jefferson and Madison set it up, it’s supposed to be an organic process–it comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up.”

HOW do we slowly convince member to sign up? By holding hearings and informing the uninformed.

Also, note the word "slowly?" Many of us have been saying "this is the way it's supposed to work." Conyers job is to do what he's doing - INVESTIGATE/HOLD HEARINGS, the media's job is to tell the story, the peoples job is to overwhelmingly support impeachment and contact their local reps. That's what will happen if we let JC do his job and stop using him for political stunts.

Should we call our legislators? YES. Should we waste the time of John Conyers, use him to launch a political campaign and put words into his mouth? NO!

I hope that Sheehan and Swanson will heed Nichols words "The notion that John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken" before they barge into his office demanding impeachment NOW again?

I'm done for the day. Have a nice weekend P2B.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. And even more from that same article:

Of course, the Democrats are saying no such thing. Instead, they talk about getting on with the important business of the Congress, and not wasting time on impeachment.

[mzmolly]

73. ... which is why I defer to John Nichols and not more paraphrasing and innuendo.

But I guess that explains by Swanson posted the article. :eyes:

Again good day P2B. :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. John Nichols was in the office with Conyers?

[mzmolly]

86. Nichols is a constitutional expert who clarified that neither Conyers or Pelosi can bring about

impeachment alone.

"The notion that John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken..." Shouldn't Cindy and David defer to Nichols on this?

However, the author of the article noted wasn't in the room either was she? It's my understanding that she is taking the paraphrased smear by reactionaries like Sheehan and Swanson and running with it? Thus my concern.

Let me know when you guys hear from David on what was ACTUALLY said about "never impeaching."

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. I have already posted that

There were 3 people in the office. I posted what each of them said.

But then, you know this.

[mzmolly]

88. You posted what each of them said, sans what Conyers said.

Let me know when someone actually has a quote from Conyers that negates what his office told me today "John Conyers has NOT said he will NEVER impeach."

[proud2BlibKansan]

90. But that would be hearsay

How about you call Conyers and get him to make that public statement?

Or maybe he has to give another speech this weekend and fire up some progressives with false promises.

[mzmolly]

91. A quote is a quote. A paraphrase is shit.

I'll wait for David to clarify given he made the accusations without an actual quote to begin with. To my understanding you are in communication with him, no?

You see, in order for me to believe something was "false" or "promised" I'd have to have evidence to that effect. I'm funny that way. And, if David Swanson will not go on the record with actual conversation, what are we even discussing here?

[madfloridian]

89. Nice.

:applause:

[mzmolly]

93. Thanks MF

Bookmark that article, I expect it may come in handy? ;)

[madfloridian]

24. Cindy's supporters are determined to hurt a good man, aren't they?

There is no letting up.

I am going to make a separate post with some of the great stuff he said on Democracy Now which is being spun.

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

REP. JOHN CONYERS: The reason I am not, notwithstanding my fiery rhetoric at the rally, which I thought was quite appropriate, by the way, and I don't retract, we're firing -- on November 7, we fired all the Republicans we could find that are supporting President Bush. Next year in November, we're going to get hired to do the job of leading this country with a Democratic president and with a stronger House and Senate majority. You know, a one-senate majority lead is not much of a majority. Fifteen-vote change in the House would erase the advantage that we have. And quite frankly, any impeachment proceeding that would go forward without taking out the Vice President and the President, to me, would be a waste of time. We don't have the luxury to impeach this president and this vice president. We have the responsibility to stop the war in Iraq, and I think it's proceeding along sound lines, and then we will be able to deal with Katrina, the domestic under-funding of everything from healthcare to housing to job creation, to re-entry of former felons. All the things that need to be done have to be taken care of. A $2 trillion debt is what we are paying to stay in Iraq. We've got to stop that financial hemorrhaging as a first responsibility in the Congress.

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

Our country is in crisis....they are issuing subpoenas and bringing charges.

They are doing what they can do right now.

[EFerrari]

25. What spin? When I posted that, I was trying to answer a question.

Nothing that I have said can possibly be construed as "trying to hurt a good man". You are out of line but that seems to be your habit.

[madfloridian]

29. One post after the other. How am I out of line? Explain, please.

.

[EFerrari]

33. You are characterizing me as someone who wants to hurt Mr. Conyers

for one thing -- and in one post after another.

MzMolly raised the question last night and it was a good question. We were trying to sort it out this morning. Why do you have to insert overheated dramatics into our conversation?

[madfloridian]

40. Oh, well, then. Have your conversation.

I will back out since I am dramatic.

Go right ahead.

[EFerrari]

43. Stay if you like but it's pretty hard to hold a conversation

when the insults and accusations start flying. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

51. Oh, gee, I am so glad there have been no accusations flying...

about John Conyers...:sarcasm:

about Pelosi....:sarcasm:

about Dean...:sarcasm:

I am so glad there have been no accusations because they won't say the word impeachment right now.

[EFerrari]

53. Are they posting to this thread? I must have them on ignore

because I don't see them!

[bluedog]

31. what some do not get is it...the votes

the DAMN votes are NOT there......we have the majority .yes.....but we need 2/3...more.........and we know damn well that the republicans are NOT going on record to impeach their own R president.

when republicans piss and moan as per (specter) about important things,,,,,,they always always..vote for the party.........no matter what they spout in hearings and on TV..they stick to the party line/

what is Conyers suppose to do......wave his wand and presto the votes are there?

[madfloridian]

34. They are trying to hurt Democrats.

I was never upset with Cindy until she started being the judge and jury of all things Democrat.

She is no smarter, she is no more passionate about her country than I am....and I am tired of her putting all them down.

[bluedog]

36. many of us are so tired of this ...........

[mzmolly]

47. True, once again.

Swanson = 2000 Nader supporter, Cindy = closet Libertarian - it's no wonder they don't care for Dems.

;)

[EFerrari]

54. You guys keep dragging David and Cindy into this and then

you turn around and say they shouldn't get the attention.

I just want to know, lol, what John Conyers said from John Conyers.

[mzmolly]

57. So do I,

which is why I'd prefer an exact quote from David on this issue. David opend himself up to question when he posted his version of events while refusing to actually quote JC.

Now, I'm out, the conversation has been wrung dry IMHO. It's no longer productive.

:hi:

Peace sfexpat. We'll see you around.

[EFerrari]

60. David has a website might respond to a question.

www.davidswanson. org

[bluedog]

66. his Bio say she also work for Kucinich?

David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com and of ImpeachPAC.org. He is co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, creator of MeetWithCindy.org, and a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and of the Backbone Campaign.


He was the organizer in 2006 of Camp Democracy. He serves on the steering committee of the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice and on a working group of United for Peace and Justice.


He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson is a member of and has served on the Executive Council of the Washington Baltimore Newspaper Guild.

He obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

His website is www.davidswanson.org. In April 2007, Swanson began consulting part-time for Kucinich for President 2008.

MORE AT http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/341

[EFerrari]

71. Yep. n/t

[Cameron27]

56. Cindy's a politician running for office now,

and Swanson's apparently part of that effort, so it's doubtful we'll hear anything positive about the Democrats from either of them.

[FreepFryer]

59. Which is why Swanson et. al's anti-Conyers/anti-Pelosi smears/lies so blatantly violate DU's rules.

"Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates."

[EFerrari]

61. David Swanson was active on impeachment long before she was

unless I am mistaken.

[Cameron27]

65. So, maybe he was part of the group who urged her to run?

Whatever his involvement with the impeachment movement is, right now one or both of them have an agenda to defeat an incumbent Democrat. Cindy's already gone on record telling us why the Democrats are abhorrent to her, and in my opinion, this is just one more attack against an incumbent Democrat.

/spelling

[EFerrari]

68. The impeachment movement's goal isn't to defeat Democrats

but to impeach Bush/Cheney.

[Cameron27]

74. Cindy's goal is to defeat a Democrat.

She could have continued working in the impeachment movement without her dramatic smear against "the party of slavery," but she didn't, which is why Skinner went out of his way to re-state the rules. I question her motives as well as Swanson's, when it comes to repeating what Conyers may or may not have said.

[EFerrari]

75. The topic of the OP is impeachment, not Cindy Sheehan. n/t

[Cameron27]

76. The topic is Sheehan's opinion of the impeachment

process, the topic is a third party candidate's debate on the subject of impeachment.

[EFerrari]

77. You might want to reread it. Have you watched the segment? n/t

[Cameron27]

79. Yes I've read it. I don't take anything that Sheehan

says about the impeachment process or the Democrats in Congress at face value anymore. She put herself in the political arena so everything she says now, has to be viewed from the angle of another politician running for office.

[EFerrari]

81. This wasn't The Cindy Show but if that's what you make of it

that's certainly your prerogative.

[Cameron27]

83. I never said it was the Cindy show,

but she's part of this debate, and if I'm going question the motives of my guys running for office, there's no way in hell I'm going to let her off the hook. She's a politician now, and her agenda is not above scrutiny.

Ok, I'm off to the dentist so I have to leave right now.

[Breeze54]

78. It's a DEBATE between THREE people!! She isn't debating herself!

:eyes:

Gheesh!

Should Impeachment Be Off the Table?
A Debate with Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan, Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern and Democratic Strategist Dan Gerstein

[Cameron27]

80. I never said she was debating herself.

[Breeze54]

82. You said this was only showing her POV! It isn't.

[Cameron27]

84. What I said in effect was that

Cindy is arguing her point of view about the impeachment process, and you can't dismiss the fact that she may be biased because she's now running against a Democrat.

Ok, I've really got to leave now.

[EFerrari]

37. But that doesn't address the post you were responding to.

MzMolly asked about what Mr. Conyers actually said. No one is asking him to perform magic here. We're trying to figure what he said. Geezus.

[bluedog]

39. until we all hear or read a statement from him

we will not know what was said...........as no reporters were allowed in .....we are getting a one sided conversation from those protesters involved

[EFerrari]

41. Which is why we were looking for a direct quote. So, actually

you are the one that didn't "get it".

[bluedog]

49. May 18, 2006; No Rush to Impeachment

Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials.








http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701880.html


*****this occured in 06.where did he change his mind.........

[EFerrari]

52. That's what we were trying to figure out. Here's what he said

1/2007 in DC:

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!

And see Hissyspit's thread on what he said in San Diego recently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1434654

[FreepFryer]

55. Far as I can tell, he hasn't changed his mind...

May 29, 2007: Conyers endorses national effort to impeach Bush, Cheney
Associated Press http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=6583728
and http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/52616

Detroit Congressman John Conyers says he supports a national effort calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. But he stopped short today of pledging to take action to back it. The veteran democratic lawmaker chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which would lead any impeachment hearings.

Conyers did say that he encourages nationwide efforts to build support for impeaching Bush.

"U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said Tuesday he supports a national effort calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, but stopped short of pledging to take action to back it. 'I've been supportive of that movement,' said Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee that would lead impeachment hearings. 'I encourage that nationwide.'

Rep. Conyers has been consistent and politically astute, balancing his need to build bipartisan support for his Committee's investigations with the increasing clamor for impeachment.

t's just that Rep. Conyers (D), ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, doesn't want to damage the political effectiveness of his ongoing investigations by caving in to bullying by erstwhile Independents, and isn't willing to 'Impeach Now' solely because they threaten or smear him.

And as a Democrat whose expressed preference for political effectiveness trumps his willingness to be used for political theater, Conyers has my full support.

The investigations by Democrats in power continue... and DU won't be a platform for Independents to smear our elected Democratic Party representatives.

[Breeze54]

26. Thanks!

:kick: & Recommended.

[Breeze54]

44. I clicked the MP3 link to hear the interview and all I'm hearing

is news!! :wtf: Where is the interview?? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

45. It's generally 15 minutes into the show, after the headlines.n/t

[Breeze54]

48. Thanks! I got aggravated so I stopped the MP3 and closed

Quick Time and went back and clicked on Segment
and it opened in Real Player and I'm listening now.

Thanks sfexpat2000! ;)

[EFerrari]

50. Sure! I love that show, watch it every morning!

:)

[Breeze54]

62. That was a good interview of all three.

Cindy sounded quite sane to me despite the naysayers. And it's rather funny to
me that all three seem to be in agreement that B & Co do need to be impeached!!

All three said that they want it! :rofl:

[EFerrari]

69. Yep. I was suprised that former Joementum aide sounded

pretty sane!

[Breeze54]

72. I was surprised too! I was expecting

an angry raving DINO lunatic using Lieberman's talking points! :P

[Junkdrawer]

58. Last week, I posted: "Can we cut the BULLSHIT? - IT'S ABOUT THE OIL..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1368174

And today, Ray McGovern said this:



And meanwhile, as Cindy points out, people are dying. People are dying every day. Eight Americans died today. And when people come up to me and say, as one has, “Look, Mr. McGovern, we need the oil, don't we?” I say, “Yeah, we do.” He said, “Well, you know, I have to admit that eight GIs on a given day is a pretty small price to pay for the oil that we need. After all, in Vietnam we had maybe twenty or thirty killed every day.” Well, you know, I think subconsciously, Amy, I think subconsciously that's the way a lot of Americans feel. They're susceptible to this appeal to watch for our way of life. That's what they're after. They’re after our way of life. And so, we have to get real. And we have to say, “Is it worth sacrificing the lives of eight young men and women on a given day so that we can pretend to have some rights to the oil that happens to lie under the sands of Iraq?”

[madfloridian]

63. Raise your hand if you think the Senate has the votes....here's the procedure.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

Q. What is impeachment?
A. It is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office.

Q. Who are these officials?
A. Article 2, Section 4, specifies that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." These "civil officers" include federal judges and cabinet members, but do not include Senators and Representatives, (the Senate and House deal with misconduct by their own members).

Q. What is the role of the House of Representatives in impeachment under the Constitution?
A. Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment." This means that it has the power to bring charges against an official.

Q. What is the Senate's role under the Constitution?
A. Once impeached, high officials are tried by the Senate. Article 1, Section 3, specifies, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

Could it be that Conyers is just being realistic?

[TheBaldyMan]

95. so you'ld need 20 Republican senators to be in danger of losing their seats in '08

how big a swing would that take with Chimpy at 25% and falling and the GOP freak show running now.

If the Republicans want to get wiped out at the next election they should carry on with business as usual. At least if they impeached King George they would claw back some measure of credibility. As it stands now they are treating the whole country with contempt.

They had the MSM in their back pocket, rigged elections and industrial quantities of money at their disposal in Nov '06, they lost. Their position isn't going to be anywhere near as strong in '08, they could be heading for an election defeat of historic proportions. They also seem to be the party that is most susceptible to paranoia and fear. Play on that and you might find more than one or two willing to play back-stab the leader.

Bush insists all is well, Cheney lost the plot years back, Gonzales wants to stay on a fix the broken DoJ. Does the GOP really want to commit electoral suicide to protect these scandal ridden liabilites?

[Swamp Rat]

92. k&r

[Breeze54]

94. Beautiful!!!

You are so talented! Thank you! :hug: