I'm Very Disappointed That Obama Will Not Support Dennis Kucinch In .....

[global1]

his impeach G.W.Bush resolution.

*Co is a criminal administration that shredded our constitution and they need to be held accountable. If our presumptive nominee won't do that - I find that questionable - and I've been an Obama supporter from the get-go.

What kind of message is this telegraphing to future administrations?

This is sad.

[roseBudd]

1. I'm not, we have an election to win and it is already June.

[tridim]

2. Obama has already promised to investigate and prosecute BushCo after he takes office. nt

[barbtries]

10. when? where?

is there a link? i want to know this is true.

[yodermon]

12. link.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

[global1]

17. Thanks For Posting This Link .....

I liked Obama's response and at least there is hope that something may be done when he takes office. I just hate to see these criminals get off scott-free with pardons - to be able to strike again someday.

[az chela]

24. It will be too late when Barack gets elected

[JDPriestly]

70. I can hear the press now dismissing the action against Bush

as "old news," and Democrats getting even. It's now or never. There is always a good reason to be a coward.

[Echo In Light]

84. ...And everyone will conveniently fall Right in line, by design

[Taverner]

144. Well, Bushco will be in Paraguay

That's where they bought property recently.

Expect them there, in exile, like Fujimori, Imelda Marcos... you get the picture

I fully expect Rummy, Cheney, Bushie and daddy all living high on the hog in Paraguay for years to come.

They won't repeat Fujimori's mistake (coming back - DOH!)

[barbtries]

26. thank you

his words are less than uplifting:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

really dumb policies? starting an unnecessary war of aggression based on lies? lying to congress and the american people, repeatedly? outing a cia agent? politicizing the department of justice, and every other department possible? letting thousands of people go without aid, drowning hungry thirsty, in filth, following katrina? spying on americans without a warrant?

nah. this statement does not cut it. i want to know justice is coming for the bushies, and i don't see it here.

and face it: it doesn't matter how pristine and careful the investigations may be, how thorough, how assiduously attentive to the law as opposed to the politics: the republicans will call it a partisan witch hunt. they'll be wrong as they are wrong about approximately every goddam thing, but that won't stop them from saying it. that is the worst fucking reason not to pursue justice i've heard yet. if obama made a republican his vice president and filled his cabinets with republicans, the republicans would still find a way to call him a partisan hack, and they're full of shit, so fuck that noise.

i could go on - but, i have high blood pressure and need to relax, and after all obama is all i want for president now. but thanks for the link.

[JDPriestly]

71. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report pretty much

responds to that hesitation about -- "Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

We have the evidence. And McClellan's book supports that evidence.

[barbtries]

74. it certainly does

and STILL he's not supporting kucinich's impeachment efforts. and we knew "there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront" years ago. i can't believe that i am better informed than members of congress, and if that is so, they better get better informed in a hurry, because they are not doing their jobs.

[MasonJar]

52. Where and when did he say that he would prosecute the Bush Crime Cabal?

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. I agree, although I still will support Obama.

I think he is making a political mistake; he underestimates the support for impeachment and the boost he would get by fighting for this.

[az chela]

22. Thank you so much for saying this.I said it this morning

and almost got lynched on here

[DearAbby]

135. It is not Obama's place to support the impeachment

as a senator, he has to appear unbiased, when the case comes to the senate. He can not say one way or the other. Just saying.

[LisaM]

4. Generally Senators don't anyway

since impeachment comes from the house. They usually decline the opportunity.

[babylonsister]

5. Wait until you see the scorn heaped on Kucinich for this, and you might

understand why Obama won't go there. I know the history books will vindicate Kucinich, but for now, the rethugs and some Dems will be brutal.

Already, the rethugs have started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3424110&mesg_id=3424110

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. Obama is too close to Pelosi-ish avoidance of the real problem to be likable, in my book.

If you're not going to do something about $4.50+ gallon regular gasoline, what ARE you going to do, and WHEN?

I'll vote Democratic but will first support those who will actually solve the actual problems we are facing.

[OzarkDem]

106. Clyburn & Hoyer needs to get busy

and start earning their paychecks getting some energy legislation passed. Reid already failed to get the job done.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080611_9311.php

[EvolveOrConvolve]

123. Do you think impeachment will lower gas prices?

Your post is ludicrously fallacious.

Ridiculous...

[LWolf]

7. I don't know why you'd be surprised.

I've never seen anything to indicate to me that Obama was the kind of man to take a stand on any principle.

[still_one]

34. Then don't vote for him if you feel that way. Obviously, you don't know much about Obama

[LWolf]

83. Obviously, you tend to think before you speak,

and to make unfounded assumptions.

I know plenty about Obama. Either I know more about him than some of his supporters, or I'm just less willing to turn a blind eye. What I know will inform my vote; I don't need your help with that. My vote is undecided, and will remain so at least until after the Democratic Convention.

[DainBramaged]

50. Really? DO you have a problem with Obama, or isn't he the one you are voting for??

So are you telling us you aren't voting in the November General Election??????

[JDPriestly]

73. Most of us will vote for Obama no matter what, but

if he wants to keep all those new, young voters who have been supporting him, he had better show some integrity and courage. They want a president who will lead on the moral battlefield, who will not tolerate lies or secrecy, neither in his own administration nor in the administration he follows. Obama is now taking the helm of our party and perhaps of the nation. He had better decide right now whether he is going to veer our ship toward the vast sea of honest government or toward the rocks and shallowa of corruption and lies.

Democrats don't want corruption and lies. We don't want cover-ups of corruption of lies. That is the first lesson Obama needs to prove that he understands. He will not be the next president if he cannot show himself to be more courageous and more honest with the American people than McCain.

Obama is up against a man who presents himself as a war hero and a man of courage. Thus far Obama has talked about change but he has not proved himself to be the kind of hero or man of courage who can bring about change. So far, he has only shown that he is a great speaker. Impeachment is his opportunity to show that he really has the moral courage to change D.C., and that his moral courage surpasses McCain'a posture of military courage. This will be a pivotal issue that could decide the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.

Bush was a weak man, a liar. He was a draft dodger who, as president, dodged every opportunity to act with integrity. Obama has to address the crimes of Bush during the election campaign if he wants to prove that he has the ability to change Washington should he be elected. If Obama cannot even risk backing the impeachment of a known criminal, how can he change Washington? Perhaps he has an answer. If so, he needs to provide it to the American people and to those of us that he relies on to vote for him.

[Skittles]

79. stop talking logically

you'll make their heads spin

[DainBramaged]

110. Why don't you ask that of both of the Presidential candidates?

I have a feeling that too many here will sacrifice the chance to rout the Right wing so that they can be viewed as 'Liberally purer than thou', just to make a point that it's their way or no way.

I think you will forever be disappointed in your quest for Liberal purity, as will the Christian Right forever be disappointed in not being able to have Jesus Christ run for President, or at the very least, their distorted version of Him.

Take care, but prepare to be utterly disappointed in your views and expectations.

[LWolf]

82. Yes, I have multiple problems with Obama.

It's no secret; I've said so since he entered the primaries. One of the problems that I have with him is that he is a neoliberal.

I disagree with Obama on too many issues for comfort, since you asked.

And, since you asked, I'm not telling you anything about my vote in November. If you are curious, I'll repeat what I've already stated numerous times at DU: I'm undecided.

I won't make a decision until after the convention. I may not make a decision until November.

[DainBramaged]

111. I have a feeling that with your statement, you are leaning towards voting for McSame

and that is a VERY sad admission on your part, very sad.

[Runcible Spoon]

118. way to twist syntax to indirectly accuse someone of being a repuke.

which is a direct violation of DU posting rules. But I'm sure you in your infinite knowledge know EXACTLY how to smear someone without getting caught. I fucking can't stand the vast majority of shit that you smear all over this board.

[LWolf]

119. Then I have to point out that your "feelings" are sadly lacking

in perception. Apparently, you have named yourself well. I suggest that you're intuition is failing you, and that you'd be better off not judging without some hard evidence to back it up.

Your assumption is not even in the ballpark.

I have never voted for a Republican for president, and I won't be starting now. I'm 48 years old and have voted for a Democrat for president every single election I was old enough to vote in.

I'm undecided this time. For good reason. Whatever I eventually decide to do, a republican candidate is not on MY "table."

[DainBramaged]

127. (sigh) Whatever. I won't be watching what to do anyway.

[stillcool]

8. I don't know which Senators..

if any have come out in favor of Impeachment. Anyone know? And I don't know why that is. It would seem to me that concentrating on the crimes committed by the Bush Administration would be go a long way towards winning the election.

[still_one]

35. Impeachment is done by the house, NOT the Senate. bush is gone

prosecute him after he is out of office

I want to know where the candidates stand on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, social security, the Supreme Court, etc.

It is those candidates who will be running the country, NOT bush

[stillcool]

81. Articles of impeachment are passed...

by the Congress..but the Senate tries the accused. My question was in response to the OP. I don't see what a candidates policy positions have to do with Senate members favoring impeachment.

[barbtries]

9. i totally agree

they marginalized and pushed kucinich out of the race early and none of the remaining candidates would stand up for what is so obviously the right thing to do. i would like to think that obama's holding those cards for when he's in the white house and can pursue criminal charges etcetera, but every additional minute the bushies get to stay in power is that much more wealth, people, and democracy we lose. and i just don't get it! the republicans impeached clinton for NOTHING compared to the items that gw would be impeached for. they considered it politically expedient to do so. WHY WHY WHY don't the democrats wake up and understand that their allowing this travesty of an administration to maintain power is complicity via inaction and that the issues are too fucking large to play nice about??? aaarrrgh

[ben_meyers]

11. Maybe Obama did the math,

35 articles of impeachment took 4-5 hours just to read into the record. Figure 3-4 days minimum to investigate each charge and another few days to debate each one. Thats what, 35 weeks to send it to a Senate where we don't have the votes to convict?

Mean while people are losing their homes and jobs and can't afford gas or food and you want to tie up the government with a lost cause? To what end?

Obama may not be the smartest man in the world, but he can see these hearings sucking the air out of his campaign and pissing the Voting public off.

[Fire Walk With Me]

29. ...

"Mean while people are losing their homes and jobs and can't afford gas or food and you want to tie up the government with a lost cause? To what end?"

The government is causing those problems.

[Senator]

61. That's some very fuzzy math

The 35 articles are written to be voted on AS IS. There is no investigation required. (Is there something necessary to "find out" that's not already on the public record?)

And we currently have just as many votes to convict as to acquit (as if that were relevant to doing the right thing).

Sorry to be "sucking the air out" of your rationalizations for inaction. But Obama "can see" only the DC/Euphemedia Strategerists Groupthink.

Taking up impeachment for torture and war crimes may be the ONLY way to put the election past the stealing point. It's called "leading" -- on a matter of principle. Without it, you are left with the "optics" of weakness and having no principles -- electoral folly in any "political climate." It's exactly what the neofascists are counting (and recounting) on.

More importantly, impeachment might even be the only way to reunite our once-great nation. That's "what end" simple objection/impeachment in the name of The American People to atrocities committed in their name pursues.

It is failure to impeach, which is complicity with -- approval of -- exoneration for war criminals that is the lost cause.

The worst of all outcomes.

===

[DainBramaged]

113. impeachment will never unify our country. Unless you don't live in America

It tore us apart when the Reich tried to impeach Clinton, and there is still bitter resentment towards him and the Democratic Party that will last a lifetime because they were unsuccessful. How would you feel if (and we will) fail to impeach Booshe? Do we have the super majority to do so? In the Senate? Do you and everyone else here honestly think it would ever make it to a vote in either house?

You dream of a Fascist state, and we are not a Fascist state.

[Senator]

115. Without impeachment, America doesn't exist to live in...

...because the Constitution is then a non-functional fairy tale. That was made clear again with today's Supreme Court ruling on detainees. Without the threat of impeachment, the regime is happy to ignore it like it has all the others.

FWIW, the country did unify -- in opposition -- to the Clinton impeachment. But any comparison to that circumstance is simply oxymoronic. That "bitter resentment" you concern yourself with is a permanent fixture of the neo-fascist rightwing in this country. If you're suggesting there's some way to "unify" with war criminals, that's not an America I recognize.

But to answer your questions, we are currently failing to impeach. Any progress toward doing so is far better than this. This is complicity -- approval -- exoneration for the regime. And presuming what others might do -- in a House vote or a Senate trial -- is just defeatist rationalization for inaction/failure.

But it is you who are dreaming. We have been living in a fascist state since Jan. 6, 2001 -- when the "consent of the governed" was taken out of the loop. Impeachment would at least begin the process of Redemption of Our National Soul.

It remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[DainBramaged]

116. Then why didn't DK start this in 2006? I've been asking for 3 days now

but all I get is blasted.

Actually I just don't give a shit anymore. I'm going to continue to hide impeachment threads and work towards getting Obama elected. THAT is not a fairy tale or a dream.

[Senator]

120. Because he used to be like you.

But it's neve too late to do what one knows is right. Luckily for us, DK chose not to hide. Hopefully his courage will help pull other heads out of the sand. Because hiding just continues the nightmare.

Or do you imagine that bushcheney(ites) will have any trouble keeping full control of DC unless they're impeached, then prosecuted -- no matter who's in the WH in 2009?

(PS: And I'm sorry you feel "blasted." It's not my intent to single you out personally.)

---

[PeaceNikki]

128. I am sure it has nothing to do with him being up for reelection this fall

Since he's all like super virtuous and stuff, he'd never do anything to try to put himself in the limelight.

[DainBramaged]

138. Nooooooooooooo Dennis?

He has a halo. Remember when he was a mayor of Cleveland in 1978 (I do, most here wouldn't because they were to young to care about politics)? When he was a kid? And they tried to recall him because basically he (basically) couldn't compromise with anyone and threw his police commissioner under the bus? He survived the recall by 236 votes .

Not that Dennis Kucinich

[DainBramaged]

129. No, he was never like me, because I wouldn't fool myself into thinking I could be President

but that is another argument for another time. I disagree with your assessment of his agenda, but it doesn't matter now. He'll get some attention directed at him, McCain will get lots of positive press because 'the crazy Left wing is stirring up impeachment talk as revenge for Bill Clinton' and nothing will come of it except Obama's message being drowned out for a couple of weeks.

Sorry, but that's the way I feel and no one is going to change my mind.

[Senator]

132. I've said nothing about his agenda...

...just that he once thought impeachment was not worth pursuing -- and now he sees that it is a moral imperative.

If impeachment talk were going to help McCain, you can be sure the Euphemedia would be on it 24/7. Instead of imposing the blackout that it has for years.

And as the OP says, Obama is drowning his own message.

--

[DainBramaged]

133. I can see you aren't' an Obama supporter either.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Senator]

136. I'd say the opposite is true.

I'm trying to support him by getting him to make his rhetoric real. Refusing to object/act by supporting impeachment undercuts everything else he talks about. He's just another politician full of hot-air promises.

If he were to demand impeachment, he'd increase his support among the white male demographic by 5-7% overnight. This is where the "strong but wrong" preference over "weak but right" is most dominant. But he'd gain in other cohorts as well.

If the Dems actually acted on it, the change would be across the board -- and virtually permanent. Even "natural opponents" respect standing on principle. And failing to stand on (or have) any principles is what has plagued Dems for decades.

Impeachment is the only mechanism by which Obama can achieve "transformational" change. This doesn't arise from talk about "change you can believe in," but only from "change you can see happening."

Only impeachment is a "happening."

--

[DainBramaged]

137. "he'd increase his support among the white male demographic "

You really think "the White male demographic" as you put it even cares about politics the way we do here? What part of the 100+ MILLION members of our population that DON'T vote would this affect? And what part of the "White male demographic" are you talking about, working class lunch-bucket types, middle class white collar, upper class, service class (you know those guys, the ones with butt cracks that show when your toilet clogs up)the elite Capitalists who don't pay attention to anything unless it affects their bottom line? What part of the 'class'?


You have very high expectations for our population who can barely pay attention to American Idol let alone the reading of impeachment charges into the Congressional record by a man that is virtually unknown by that same general population.


I am learning much from those that think they are expert at nothing.

[Senator]

141. Yes, virtually overnight.

Q1: Some do, some don't. All care about politics "in the way they do." Is "our way" better?

Q2: The part of the 100+million that considers/votes for 3rd parties -- or opts out -- because they (perhaps rightly) see the Dems as no real alternative to the neofascists on core issues/values.

Q3: All parts. The respect for strength and aversion to weakness crosses socio-economic lines. (Q4: There was no mention of class.)

And if they had a leader/champion demanding impeachment from a position of strength/power, they'd have no need to read all the those charges. So, perhaps it is you who have very low expectations of Our Fellow Americans.

Some of us would prefer to trust, rather than manipulate, the public/electorate.

---

[DainBramaged]

142. We trusted the public to do the right thing in 2000, and we got Bushwacked

To often, we give 'the public' far more credit than they seserve.


I need to do some stuff tonight. Nice talking to you.

Goodnight

[Senator]

143. No, our leaders failed to stand on principle ... just like now.

With the exception of Senator Boxer -- on Jan. 6th, 2005 -- and the few Non-Impeachophobes now, it has been thus since then.

---

[JDPriestly]

85. So far Congress has helped the banks which have grabbed

the money and refused to, in turn, help the American people.

Bush is not going to sign any law that Democrats want, and he could start bombing Iran. Maybe bombing Iran is the right thing to do, but Bush, with his record of lying and ignoring evidence, is not the person to make that decision. Nor, with his record of total failure in handling the military, is he qualified to plan or carry out any additional military actions even if necessary.

I want impeachment because I do not want Bush to be able to speak or act after leaving office with the authority of an ex-president of the U.S. Can you picture how he is going to throw his weight around after leaving office? We will regret the fact that we have not caused his impeachment.

Bush will be more trouble after he leaves office than he is now. Just you wait and see.

[DainBramaged]

112. Well said, and you are correct

there are those within DU who would crush our opportunity to devour the Reich wing just to get back at Booshe and Cheney, and no matter how right Kucinich is, destroy our opportunity to decide the course of the Country for a couple of generations, just to make a point.

We are both walking down a very lonely road on DU, a very lonely road.

[spanone]

13. the president does not impeach...the house does that.

[still_one]

14. It is too late, and will accomplish nothing except to distract from the general election

The only thing impeachment does is remove bush from office, and they would also need to impeach cheney also

It is far better to get Obama in, and then actually prosecute later

They republicans would love the distraction

If this was two years ago, it would be another story

[cascadiance]

18. So, would you say that if Bush walked up to Nancy Pelosi with a gun and pulled the trigger?

"It is too late, and will accomplish nothing except to distract from the general election"

or would you say that it is a criminal offense that needs to be accounted for?

If we have time for prosecuting that, then why not the crimes that are already on the books?

What's the f'ing difference! He's been complicit in the deaths of many thousands of less known individuals on our planet now. If we don't prosecute criminals because "we don't have time and have other priorities", then our system of justice is gone!

[still_one]

30. because it is too late now. it is the house that impeaches NOT the senate

and they made the decision. It has nothing to do with Obama at this stage, except detract from the general election

After we get in then prosecute them, this won't do anything at this stage, and I doubt it could even be wrapped up before the election

Too late. They had their chance two years ago, and decided not to do it, don't blame Obama for that

[cascadiance]

32. So you would say it would be too late to prosecute Bush for MURDERING the Speaker of the House....

... all in the interest of some *strange* notion that it would help us win the upcoming election if we "didn't have time to do it"!

OK... I'm not sure I believe in such a system of justice, but I guess you've made yourself clear!

I'm not talking about Obama. It's not really his job at this point. But to say it's too late for impeachment in my book is just plain F'ING BS!!

[still_one]

41. Your example is nonesense. You want impeachment bitch to your representative

but it isn't going to happen

If you don't like it then write in Dennis Kucinich for President when you vote

Articles of impeachment are brought up by the House of Representatives. Get hold of pelosi if this is the number one issue in your book

but I will tell you that is not what is bothering people right now

What is bothering people is unaffordable healthcare, jobs being shipped overseas, high energy and food prices, an Iraq war which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and is causing resources that should be used for us to be diverted to the military

[cascadiance]

92. Ok, so prosecuting criminal activity that lead to thousands of death is a "personal choice" issue...

... where concerned citizens need to lobby for it to happen before it does get prosecuted. OK, so now I understand what your concept of our system of justice is. Sorry if I can't agree that this isn't a "lobbying" activity. It is a responsibility issue of those in our justice department to dispense justice, not to wait to be told to do so by popular decree when "we have time for it"...

Those other issues also bother me too. And if it did you, you would know that this criminal enterprise that is running our country now is what is standing in the way of getting those solved too, and that by pursuing impeachment we actually HELP getting those other issues resolved by putting in an added point of pressure to either work with us in solving those issues or face even harsher consequences for their crimes.

WHAT are they doing now to resolve these problems that isn't getting stonewalled by these criminals. Reasons for not doing impeachment are just plain EXCUSES that are given when they are being intimidated into not following through on these courses.

[Pale Blue Dot]

19. It is ABSOLUTELY TOO LATE to hold someone accountable for thousands of deaths.

Silly to even ask about it, really.

[still_one]

31. can't you wait until after the election, and then do it. bitch to the house if you don't like it

this has nothing to do with the Senate, and if you somehow want to make this part of the election, it isn't going to happen

[JDPriestly]

86. It will be too late. Bush will be out there playing ex-president,

expert on everything. He will be defending his record. And his papers will be in transport to Texas. No one, not even Obama will be able to get them once he is out of office. It is a huge mistake to vote against impeachment. Bush must be impeached now.

[KoKo]

147. Bend Over..and take it? Is that what you are saying?

:eyes: What do YOU CARE about DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTION?

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Excuses, excuses, but there is always an excuse for NOT protecting the

constution

[still_one]

36. why don't you bitch at the house, because THEY are the ones to bring up impeachment

as far as prtecting the Constitution, they should have thought about that before voting for the patriot act or the IWR

Right now I want to win the election, and deal with the crimes after

Impeachment won't happen cause the house won't do it period

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. I have and I have also told my Critter that she can forget about my vote

and that of my husband

Only thing they will understand is a real threat to loosing their damn jobs

Their oaths are not enough, and political expediency makes YOU as guilty as them...

Not to mention that little thing called the history of impeachment since it was first used in the 1600s in the UK.

[still_one]

42. OK, fine that is all you can do under the current system, either the majority

of people in your district will agree with you and vote them out, or not

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. No, I do that to sleep at night

I don't condone war criminals or their enamblers

[still_one]

51. I understand, but others may have a different means to achieve the same goals /nt

[PeaceNikki]

46. I agree with you.

[Olney Blue]

15. It would be political suicide in the GE for Obama to support this.

[Pale Blue Dot]

20. Wrong.

Obama underestimates the support for impeachment. With the economy as bad as it is, BO would win in a landslide if he supported impeachment.

[onenote]

90. show some evidence that there is significant public support for impeachment

We just completed six months of primary debate -- over a half dozen candidates, hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities to speak out about impeachment -- speeches, debates, op-eds, interviews -- and yet only one candidate raised the issue and he was out of the race quickly without ever drawing any meaningful level of support. Impeachment is a very low priority for the public, even those members of the public that think impeachment would be appropriate. THe public is facing gas prices of $4.00, heading to $5. Food prices increasing, layoffs, a health care crisis. A war that should never have been started and that we need to get out of. THose were the issues that the voters wanted to hear about. And if after six months of discussing those issues, a candidate for office -- whether it be for president, the house or the Senate -- decided that the top priority for the remaining few weeks of this congress was impeachment -- and it is only a few weeks when you factor in the July 4 recess, the August recess, and the planned adjournment in September -- would be acting very foolishly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

140. You're Nuts.

[cascadiance]

23. So why did Jimmy Carter win?

Nixon's impeachment hearings should have been a negative that prevented that shouldn't it?

[ben_meyers]

27. Carter followed Ford

Who pardoned Nixon.

[cascadiance]

28. And if we'd done impeachment like we should have, Obama would follow SOMEONE ELSE too!

that hadn't been elected earlier.

The logic is still hollow. Even the Republicans didn't suffer after impeaching Clinton did they (even though that effort was FAR more political)?

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Who was APPOINTED not elected

GEESUS AGE, people read some damn history!

Ford is the ONLY US President who was not ELECTED

[barbtries]

76. and was never elected president

because of it. supporting impeachment and coming out hard against the crimes of the bushies would be political magic. not to mention that it's the right thing to do - along with prosecutions for all the crimes. no matter how long it takes. keeping the bushies in power while they systematically suck the people dry and throw their children at an unjust war is what is happening every day. we've already lost too much time and too many people, more than we could afford, how can anybody think we can afford more? especially just for the sake of winning an election when allowing the madness to continue is not showing the american people the way to change, just the way to keep sliding down the slippery slope we're already on?

the people are disgusted, disgusted with the bushies. all the talk about the price of gas and the slipping dollar and the lost homes - what about the dead bodies? - i don't get how allowing them to remain in office ONE MORE SECOND let alone 6 more months can be considered the right way to go about it. haven't they proven time and again that nothing is beneath them? with the bushies in power, by the time of the election we could be looking fondly back at the days we were engaged in wars on only two fronts and we were pissed at being spied on by the government instead of being locked up by it. in six months we could be wishing gas was only $4.50 a gallon. it's the bush administration who has brought us to this sad day and they aren't going to quit fleecing the nation and warmongering and lying about everything they do. and why should they? they get away with it, and nobody but kucinich has the guts to stand up and say it out loud. not even the democratic presidential nominee.

i'll vote for him. that doesn't mean i adore him or agree with every choice he makes. it means he's the best choice i have for president. hopefully the elections will go on as planned.

edited typo

[JDPriestly]

87. Ford was appointed to complete Nixon's term. He was never

elected on his own. His failure to be elected puts a lie to the concerns of Democrats that Bush's interim successor would be a Republican.

[still_one]

37. Impeachment isn't going to happen, the house isn't going to do it

The most important thing right now is to get a Democrat into the White House

If you want impeachment, write your Congressperson, because the Senate has nothing to do with bringing up Articles of Impeachment

[cascadiance]

93. This is NOT a football game! It isn't about "just win baby!" with governance of our country!

The most important thing is to restore the rule of law and our constitution.

I am NOT taking issue with whether it's Obama's job in doing impeachment. I AM taking issue with the notion that "impeachment isn't going happen" when it is clearly not in the country's and the people's interest.

I want justice pursued. I want EACH member of congress to have to step up to the bar to say whether they believe this administration committed a crime or not. And now is as good a time as any to do so, to make sure they are held accountable for their decision by the American electorate in the coming election. That is what they are afraid of. Because they know their corporate contributors and other blackmailing entities in Washington will be leaning heavily on them to vote against this, no matter what their personal feelings are. The bottom line is that that machine that's trying to force them to not vote on this needs to be BROUGHT down if our system of democracy (or some close facsimile) is to be restored. That is why we NEED impeachment!

[dana_b]

38. yeah? well it's going to be some kind of

"cide" if these fucking politicians don't get behind it soon! While they sit with their thumbs in their collective behinds, this administration is preparing for war with Iran. If they'd impeached two years ago, or even last year, this probably wouldn't even be an issue. To hell with their political careers- this is bigger than them.

I'm sorry, I like Obama, but this is too big to be dismissed.

[still_one]

49. That will not happen under bush, not this time, even with the IWR

For one thing, we don't have the resources, and for another thing if he did try it, he would definitely be impeached by the House

[dana_b]

54. I'm sorry, I don't have your faith.

We really don't have the resources for Iraq but we're doing it anyway. In Iran, they want an airstrike, right over the nuclear facilities using bunker busting, nuclear tipped bombs. I'm sure it will take a lot of resources, but evidently everything is going "so well" in Iraq (did you know that you can walk down the streets safely now??)that they will say that they can afford to pull some out of their and into Iran.

Impeached by the house AFTER the airstrike? I don't know about that either. He doesn't need another IWR. He's already got the power.

[still_one]

63. It isn't faith, and it isn't because bush wouldn't want to do it, he has run out of time

That is why they are hoping beyond hope mccain wins

As far as an airstrike over the nuclear facilities, they don't even know where they are. You and I know how well things are "really" going on in Iraq

You are correct, technically he does not need the IWR to go into Iran. In fact he did not need the IWR to go into Iraq, but what the IWR did was invalidate the War Powers Act, which removed any Congressional oversight from the executive branch. The War Powers Act STILL applies to Iran, and if he bombed Iran without informing Congress, as bad and as weak as Congress is, they would definitely impeach the bastard.

[dana_b]

107. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on that one. n/t

[barbtries]

77. and how many more people would be dead by then

who are alive today? it is a matter of life and death, after all.

[KoKo]

148. "Political Suicide?" I thought that Obama had the "Back" of the Nation, Kos and Buzzflash...plus

all the other "Progressive Sites" that fell all over him ...telling us Dem Progressives to "SUPPORT HIM OR DIE" and that "IF" we supported him "we WOULD OWN HIM!"

Are you telling me OBAMA is CAVING TO THE RIGHT? AFTER WE SUPPORTED HIM? NO!.........DO NOT TELL ME THIS! :cry:

[mzmolly]

16. Neither does Gore. I think as disappointing as this may be, we have to allow progressives

to disagree on this.

[flvegan]

21. I'll hold my disappointment until the time comes that Obama utters the words

where he calls Dennis a liar and gives justification for Bush's treason by saying that there's no call for impeachment or fails to do his job to uphold the Constitution because there may be call for impeachment but he's too busy.

[Breeze54]

53. You didn't have to wait to long... ""I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches...."

Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_n.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) —

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees
in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush
or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical
standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added.
"We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

:banghead:

[flvegan]

60. I want to hear it from Presidential Candidate Obama

I was disappointed in him then, but as a man looking to earn my vote, I want to either hear it again, or hear something different. I think that the Articles introduced by Rep. Kucinich meets and exceeds the boundaries set by Obama as to reservation.

[barbtries]

78. those comments made me feel sick inside.

what could be more grave than thousands if not possibly one million unjust, premature deaths?! ugh, that's so sad. so sad.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

25. When he wins the Presidency,...he'll have to power to DO something more impactful.

So, why are you complaining?

:shrug:

Geeeeee,...I wonder,...:rofl:

[PaDem]

40. would you like him to win in November?

Impeaching Bush is a total non-starter and a waste of time. Counter productive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Lets talk plainly

I don't care what Obama says... once he gets elected I expect him to take that broom, yep the one used by Clinton, to brush it under the rug.

There, it will lie to be hopefully forgotten with the BCCI scandal and Iran Contra

Only when this nation in its totality decides to openly deal with the crimes committed in our names, will we finally be able to overcome and grow up

So I am not disappointed. You cannot be disappointed when you don't expect an action to be taken

Oh and that thing that bothers many of you, aka defending this useless piece of paper, is what some of us will go to our graves defending... eve if we know that the "reality based community" and the blue dogs are truly co-conspirators.

[PeaceNikki]

44. I'm not. I trust his decision. He knows a lot more about the inner workings of the legislator than I

ever will.

As I've stated very clearly, I don't think that not supporting impeachment = giving them a pass. I think it's based on a very realistic and well-reasoned approach.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3422081

[Swamp Rat]

48. I hope Obama fulfills his promise to go after them after he is elected

because I doubt the Congress will clean house.

[sandyd921]

55. As much as I want impeachment

I want prosecution for war crimes for all of them even more. If I thought that was likely in an Obama administration I could live with his not coming out in favor of impeachment. But then I don't have much reason to believe such a prosecution will ever take place.

[PeaceNikki]

57. See? THAT is a point that many are missing.

Why blow your wad on an unfruitful impeachment? There are other ways of holding them accountable. I think everyone EVERYONE agrees that they should be held accountable and would LOVE nothing more. But, somehow the people here who don't support impeachment now are literally called "lesser Democrats". It's rigoddamndiculous!

[Breeze54]

64. Why? How about to save the Constitution, Rule of Law and the reputation of POTUS?

How about to establish the reasons for trying them in a court for murder? How about making sure that this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN??? You are the one that doesn't get it and the fact that it is NOW, finally, on the Congressional Record, then future generations won't look back and wonder why THIS generation (yours!) did nothing in the face of such obvious criminal behavior worthy of impeachment. So they won't wonder if America was just a dream from the past or is it a huge joke played on them or is it something to be proud of and cherish?!

[jberryhill]

56. Senator Obama is trying to remove the entire Republican Administration

...which is a worthwhile effort.

[PeaceNikki]

58. Yes

:thumbsup:

THAT should be the focus!

[bvar22]

59. I'm a Kucinich supporter, and I'm NOT disappointed in Obama.

Kucinich was my FIRST choice, Edwards, and then Obama.
Obama was the 2nd MOST Conservative of all the Democratic candidates, trailing only Hillary as the most conservative.

Obama is a solid Centrist, and won't be rocking the boat for Impeachment during the GE.
I am now a solid Obama supporter, but never suffered from the delusion that he was a Lefty.
I AM delighted that he threw the Lobbyists out of the DNC, and installed Dean for another term as chairman.

Obama owes MORE to the grassroots, and as such, I believe that he will listen to the Left, but he will NOT do anything unwise or shocking without the groundwork first.


It would be unwise for Obama, as a sitting Senator and Presidential nominee to take the lead in Impeachment. Impeachment (and Single Payer HealthCare) will have to come through the Congress FIRST.
Congress is where we need to work.

[KharmaTrain]

62. I Like Jon Turley's Suggestion...

Tonight on Countdown he opened up the possibility that a Special Prosecutor can be appointed by a President Obama...and I would love to see Peter Fitzgerald or David Igelsias put in that role...and tell them "the sands out of the umpire's eyes...go for it".

The thing that made Nixon's impeachment more legitimate was the work of Archibold Cox and Leon Jaworski that eliminated a lot of the partisan criticism of the investigation. And it was this same law that also dug up a lot of the Iran-Contra and BCCI mess. Unfortunately the law got perverted once the GOOP got control of the House in '94 and turned the law on Clinton and made sure they'd poison the office so bad it'd go away. It sure did...and at the time many Democrats were glad to see it go. I dreaded it.

[HughMoran]

65. Obama is our next President

He doesn't have to prove anything to me.

[magellan]

89. Freepers talk the same way about Bush** n/t

[HughMoran]

94. That's a moranish post

Get uncontrollable urges to be an ass hole often?

[HughMoran]

96. So in your ignoramus world, Obama must support Kucinich - like some sort of political "test"

Who's the fucking FREEPER?

What an inane post - you even fucking imply I'm a FReeper again and I'm going to ignore you - permanently.

[magellan]

97. No, in my ignoramus world Obama must support the Constitution

That ain't my political test, it's the Founding Fathers'.

[HughMoran]

99. Yeah, assuming impeachment wasn't a political move

Which you know that it is.

Stop playing coy.

[magellan]

103. Pelosi et al are making it political

...and are afraid of letting the Repubs make it political. IMO that's putting the horse before the cart. If Congress won't hold the Executive to the Rule of Law, then what's to say they hold themselves and each other to it? Trust? We aren't supposed to trust them. That's why we have laws, and why they take oaths to support and defend those laws.

Our government is based on the Constitution. Ignore that legal framework and the rest is undermined.

[HughMoran]

104. Well, and elect a new President every 4 years if all else fails

I agree that Bush needs to be impeached, convicted, removed from office, tried as a war criminal and subsequently I would assume that his punishment would be very, very severe.

Without the political will to do this, I am OK with the Dems keeping this lame, lame duck in the WH as his presence serves to motivate Dems everywhere. Winning the Presidency is more important to me that impeaching Bush at this late point - we can always try him for war crimes later. If the Dems think that having alame Bush is better than the alternative (a new, possibly logical Republican President - yeah, right), then I am going to have to agree with them. I think/hope they know what they are doing...

[hokies4ever]

66. It's the best strategy for the November elections

plain and simple.

[Median Democrat]

67. Focus On The Freakin Election

Articles of impeachment with less than six months remaining? This is a waste of resources, and a distraction. Its like starting a recall petition for a local official a few months before his term ends anyways. Focus on the election, which will be difficult with the MSM now showing its true GOP colors.

[Freddie Stubbs]

100. Some people would rather have their dessert before eating their veggies

[Wizard777]

68. Personally I don't think it would be proper. Separation of powers.

The House will have the SOLE power of impeachment. Obama is currently a Senator that is running for President. So It doesn't get any better. It takes on a double whammy aspect. He should neither speak in favor nor against.

[ellisonz]

69. Really?

[earth mom]

72. Get used to it. NO change is gonna happen in '09 and beyond.

:puke:

[galledgoblin]

75. I'm disappointed but understanding

if he doesn't pursue charges once in office, though, I'm going to be livid.

[TheWatcher]

80. You should prepare to be livid, then.

Because that's exactly how it will play out. And I hate it every much as you will.

But then the new season of American Idol will Start, or 24, or Lost, or our favorite Sports team will start playing again in a new season, and we'll slowly forget all about it.

Forgive my cynicism, but this country is on it's last leg and it's dying breath.

We need the paddles.

STAT.

[4themind]

88. Also the bush cabal can't be pardoned

if they haven't been charged with anything, is that right? If so once obama is elected he can do something which will punish bush's legacy even more, that is get these guys charged and hopefully sent to the hague. So to me if tabiling the impeachment issue leads to a greater chance of actually getting these people in chains(which I concede there isn't enough information to know that at this point of time), I'd take it.

[global1]

109. I Never Thought Of That - If They Haven't Been Charged With Anything......

they can't be pardoned. If * can't give his administration a 'get out of jail free card' - they essentially go out of office with the potential for them to be charged when they are no longer in power. How simple. How devious.

[onenote]

91. Might as well get used to the idea: there will be no "punishment" for chimpy

There might be some additional investigations but criminal prosecutions? war crimes trials? post-term impeachment? None of it is going to happen. Why? Because the public wouldn't stand for it. Hopefully, we will have a new Democratic president and strengthened Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. THe priorities for the new executive and legislative branches during 2009 will be clear: ending the war, addressing energy, health care, and the economy, and possibly, some telecommunications legislation (mostly because a relatively obscure law impacting the DBS industry expires in 2009 and the legislation to extend it could become a vehicle for other Communications Act and Copyright Act amendments).

But that's it. The reason that Obama is resonating with so many voters is that he is looking forward. Is it right that chimpy and gang get off "scot free"? No, but most people don't think they are getting off scot free -- they are leaving office with their reputations in tatters and with their party in disarray. Expecting more than that is fantasy. The public doesn't care and indeed would be generally outraged if Congress made a priority of something that the public did not demand be discussed during the primary phase of the campaign (or during the 2006 general elections), and that the public will not demand be discussed during the general election either.

[mdmc]

95. Warning - sharp learning curve ahead

He is gonna break our liberal hearts, he is.

[Virginia Dare]

114. Warning cock-eyed optimism ahead..

I think living under Obama will be like sunshine and lollipops compared to living under Bush/Cheney for eight LOOOONG years. I also think Obama is doing the right thing by concentrating on winning the election and staying as positive as he can. Let others do the dirty work.

[mdmc]

121. The bigdog was lollipops and sunshine too my friend

sure the drug war continued, and the war on poverty kinda became the war on the poor, but that is still rainbows and unicorns to w.

[DutchLiberal]

98. He wants the same dictatorial powers Bush had.

That's why every presidential candidate who had the tiniest chance of winning the nomination opposed impeachment.

[Cleita]

125. I'm almost certain that you are right, not necessarily about Obama, but

about the Democratic Party leadership. They are salivating over taking Congress and the White House and inheriting all those powers. I don't like it. Those kind of powers are dangerous even among those who are ethical. We have to keep pushing for impeachment at the grass roots level even if it strips the White House of the ill gotten powers acquired by Bush and his vassal warlords.

[Marrah_G]

101. It could well cost us the election if he did

[Amonester]

126. It could well secure the election if Congress does.

The majority of the House can impeach first, then send the case to the Senate, where Obama should have to vote on it.

It's the only "place" where Senator Obama WILL (hopefully) have to "decide" what to do with regards to what the... CONSTITUTION says...

[blues90]

102. They have had at least since Jan of 2007 to start impeachment

All I have seen so far is Kucinich and then Feingold supported by Boxer asking to censure Bush by no could not have this.

also there is nothing to stop a senator from trying to push congress. Two have tried and the rest sat of their ass and did nothing , this includes all of the dems running for president.

Conyers had his book of bush crimes and did nothing with it.

I don't expect anything from these politicians other than them securing their seats with empty promises.

Tell me I wrong , I'd really like to hear it.

All of the people who know about the crimes are well aware of the crimes and the rest don't seem to care of just are to bogged down to be able to look at it.

DC is just one huge bubble and the media are water carriers.

[Occam Bandage]

105. Obama won the nomination. DK didn't get 1%. There's a reason, kiddo.

[MonkeyFunk]

108. yup!

I like a President who can count to 67

[Cleita]

124. The reason was that his own party wouldn't support him making

it easy for him to be ignored, shunned and not able to broadcast his message.

[terrya]

130. Yes.

[LiberalPersona]

117. No way

If he did, it could hurt his campaign.

I think winning the election is more important than impeaching Bush mere months before he's gone for good anyway.

[wvbygod]

122. It's all about change

Hope. Change. All that stuff.

[librechik]

131. Obama has to recuse himself from the impeachment movement

to the Pukkkes it would look like he has something to gain

[leftofthedial]

134. Clinton let George the First off the hook.

The Democratic Congress let Nixon off the hook.

Obama will let George the Lesser off the hook.


THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN AMERICA. WITHOUT JUSTICE THERE CAN BE NO PEACE.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. You're Disappointed That We Want To Win In November? Well Tough Shit.

THANK GOD Obama's taking the stance he is, which is the RIGHT stance. Thank god he is.

[KoKo]

146. Exactly...... Dems should always "bend over prostrate" to accept the inevitable RW...who work to

"penetrate them" from behind. :eyes:

[KoKo]

145. Obama can NOT support Kucinich....he has to run to the Right to get McCain......

on his "home fundie turf." To ask this...is to ask too much of a Dem Candidate who needs to appeal to ALL THE PEOPLE..not Democrats on the Left.

Do you not see this?

:sarcasm: