For those of you against impeachment: A few questions...

[Joe Fields]

It's apparent to me that your ox hasn't been gored enough for you by this administration (criminal enterprise). So, since you are more than willing to ignore, for whatever reason, (not enough votes, politically unpopular, lose elections, think Kucinich is a nut, too late to do it, fill in the fucking blank...)all of the crimes of the Bush administration, and are more than willing to ignore the solemn oaths of office, which every member of Congress must affirm or swear to, including the executive branch, then I would just like to ask you what else would you be willing to ignore?

Since you don't mind that Bush illegally started a war, is responsible for deaths of over four thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, then you probably won't mind if he lies to get us into a war with Iran, will you? I mean, after all, if congress doesn't have the balls to stop him, then what the hell, right?

Suppose he institutes the draft. Those of you who are against impeachment, but of draft age, or have children who are draft age won't mind, will you? After all, congress won't stop him, right? Or Obama might look weak, in a time of war, and well, since it's more important to win elections, no matter what the cost, then you won't mind reporting to the draft board, right?

And when Bush finally does away with the remnants of the first amendment freedoms, well, since congress will want to keep its powder dry, then you'll just adapt and use mirrors in the sun, or send smoke signals, but you'll figure out something. After all, if congress won't fight for it, why should you? They know best.

What about those of you who own guns? Suppose Bush declared martial law and went after your guns? Suppose congress didn't stop him, because they didn't want to look soft? Suppose Pelosi said there weren't enough votes to keep him from it. Then what? Would you shrug and say, "Well,guess I'll just have to turn my guns in."

What will it take for you to understand that that our elected officials MUST be held accountable for crimes they commit? No matter what the circumstances are and no matter the cost.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Sure, if you tell me how the Senate acquitting Bush of all charges would be somehow

"holding him accountable."

[Joe Fields]

4. It's called a trial.

But hey, let's not try it, because we might fail:sarcasm:

It is my unshakable belief that when the evidence is gathered and brought forth, he would be overwhelmingly convicted.

[Occam Bandage]

5. "It is my unshakable belief"

...so this conversation is dead from the get-go. Take care.

[Occulus]

7. His point was, impeachment and conviction ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

WHY do people keep forgetting this?

WHY??

[Occam Bandage]

10. Nobody's forgotten that. Impeachment without conviction is an enormous waste of time.

You would accomplish exactly as much, from media coverage to electoral influence to net legislative result, by masturbating on the Senate floor while shouting out various crimes of the Bush administration,

[Joe Fields]

11. It's plain to me that you don't think much about the rule of law.

Anything goes, right? As long as they can't pin it on you, or don't care enough to try.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Nope. Rule of law is great.

That's why I'm against acquitting George W. Bush. Unfortunately, if he is impeached, he will be acquitted, unless you can tell me which 17 Republicans (including Lieberman) will defect to vote against their own party. Please also tell me why these heroes-to-be have not been helping us break the all-time record number of Senate filibusters throughout this session.

[madokie]

60. how is it you know he would be aquitted?

personally I see it as the senate falling all over themselves, re:puke:s and dems alike to impeach once the evidence is layed out for all to see. its a no brainer beings as how they pretty much 'fessed up to a lot of crimes already.

[Joe Fields]

62. Your argument is extremely shortsighted and illogical.

It is based on the assumption that the Senate would vote today on it,. First, that would be impossible, since the House hasn't voted impeachment articles out of committee. Secondly, your argument assumes that no one, not one Senator would change their vote, or consider changing their vote, or bow to increased public pressure to change their vote.

Your argument ignores the very real possibility that, once the trial were to get underway, and a steady stream of damning evidence be brought forth, that the only way for republicans to save their political neck, in the face of growing public outcry, would be to distance themselves as far away from Bush and Cheney as possible. They could very well have no choice but to throw the president under the bus. We have already seen some of that, both in the house and senate.

Lastly, using your argument, concerning life, in general, if everyone felt the same way you do, we would still be in the stone age. Columbus would not have tried to prove that the earth was round, the industrial age would never have taken place, the space program would never come into existence, etc...

In short, although it matters whether Bush would be convicted, it ultimately matters a great deal more that we pursue impeachment, and at least try to hold him accountable to the rule of law.

Either you believe in the rule of law and the constitution, or you don't.

[tom_paine]

16. Bullshit. Bullshit. BULLSHIT! can you be that blind as to not have noticed the advantages

the Bushies gained from the Phony Clinton Impeachment?

If not for the Phony Clinton Impeachment, the Bushies would not have been able to launder their operatives into the punditocracy so easily, and the advent of Fox Newsworld, which is now the entire MSM Toady Media, would have likely been delayed.

"Clinton Fatigue" which lead Al Gore to not only distance himself from the Clintons but to pick, literally, the WORST VP candidate in all of American History...LieberJoementum. You might argue Gore was a sucker for allowing himself and his advisors to be stampeded into dumb decisions, but it does not mitigate the effectiveness of the Phony Clinton Impeachment.

The Phony Clinton Impeachment kept Clinton tied up so he could not focus on further initiatives to benefit the nation, having to spend X hours a day huddled with laywers, etc.

There's more, but I trust I have made my point. In addition, while the Bushies had to basically invent Clinton's criminality, we have multiple serial felonies, if not treasons, openly performed. Gonzales, for one obvious example of ironclad guilt.

Oh, and unlike the Phony Clinton Impeachment, in which the Bush Lie Machine andthe Toady Media teamed up the way they usually do, to make sure every tiny bit, true or false, of the Phony Clinton Impeachment was ingrained on the brains of the Ameriman Subject populace through 24/7 repetition, a REAL Impeachment of Bush would have the advantage of bringing the many things to light that the Bush Lie Machine and Toady Media have conspired to keep secret from the public.

So, even if one disregards the DUTY to the Constitution aspect of it and the "it's always a good thing to at least TRY to bring criminals to justice" aspect of it and the "maybe it will deter them NEXT time, knowing there may be a trail, if not a conviction" aspect, you are still unbelievably, staggeringly WRONG.

But hey, what is reality compared to the sniveling cowardice of the 1930s Germans? I mean, you wouldn't want to make the Bushies MAD, now would you?

[Joe Fields]

17. Excellent points, tom. Thanks.

The media could not ignore an impeachment trial. They would have to cover it. The facts would come out. As you say, the process would tie the administration in knots. It would be a long time, before republicans could regain power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Actually they could and will ignore it

as they have ignored every other crime

It is not in their interest to cover it and leave corpo friendly fascist government behind

That does not mean I would use that as an excuse NOT to go forth.

As is, even if the media does not cover it, I have the sneaky people are actually demanding it now... without the media pushing for it

Which only leads me to believe that this is a concerted effort to marginalize the people by both parties, or at least some in both parties.

[Occam Bandage]

42. ...

1. If not for the Phony Clinton Impeachment, the Bushies would not have been able to launder their operatives into the punditocracy so easily, and the advent of Fox Newsworld, which is now the entire MSM Toady Media, would have likely been delayed.

Irrelevant, unless you suggest the Democrats are about to do the same.

2. "Clinton Fatigue" which lead Al Gore to not only distance himself from the Clintons but to pick, literally, the WORST VP candidate in all of American History...LieberJoementum. You might argue Gore was a sucker for allowing himself and his advisors to be stampeded into dumb decisions, but it does not mitigate the effectiveness of the Phony Clinton Impeachment.

Clinton left office with a 60% approval rating, which is phenomenal for a second-term President. Al Gore was an idiot for distancing himself from Clinton, true--but Bush is already toxic to the Republicans. Why risk screwing with that image?

3. The Phony Clinton Impeachment kept Clinton tied up so he could not focus on further initiatives to benefit the nation, having to spend X hours a day huddled with laywers, etc.

Bush is already the lamest of lame ducks. He isn't doing shit right now.

4. There's more, but I trust I have made my point.

You haven't.


So, even if one disregards the DUTY to the Constitution aspect of it

No such Constitutional duty.

and the "it's always a good thing to at least TRY to bring criminals to justice" aspect of it

No D.A. worth his paycheck would pursue a case he knows he is going to lose, no matter how guilty he knows the defendant is.

and the "maybe it will deter them NEXT time, knowing there may be a trail, if not a conviction" aspect

If Nixon's resignation didn't deter Bush, why would an acquittal of Bush deter the next guy?

you are still unbelievably, staggeringly WRONG.

You'd think then you could come up with a half-decent argument as to why you're right.

[tom_paine]

82. How far some go to keep head firmly buried.

How is it up there? Dark? Comforting? I'll bet you find it comforting.

Irrelevant, unless the Democrats do the same.

How ridiculous. The Democrats don't HAVE to do what the Bushies did to achieve such a goal. Instead of using the opportunity to fill the airwaves with liars and propagandists, they could use it to fill it with truthtellers, or at least those who aren't constantly actively trying to lie and mislead every single moment they have access to media.

That would, in fact be the mirror-opposite to what the Bushies did.

Clinton left office with a 60% approval rating, which is phenomenal for a second-term President.

Among all the numbskull things you have said, that ranks quite the highest. How was Nixon's approval rating after Impeachment/resignation? Oh, you are so busted! Try to comprehend this, though I have no doubt your ego will prevent you from hearing anything I say. Clinton's approval rating did not stem from the act of his being Impeached, it was that he was impeached FOR NO GOOD REASON. 60% of Americans recognized this. It's not our fault that the American people have as much power in our nation as the Chinese people have over their nation.

Bush is already the lamest of lame ducks. He isn't doing shit right now.

I know people routinely lie to make their point seem stronger, but have you been living in another country or something this last year? Not been doing shit? So, there's no surge, no Iran propaganda buildup, no FISA revamp coming down the pike shortly, no vetoes, no nothing???

I know your points are weak, but that's quite the whopper to tell, quite the lie, to make your point seem valid. But I understand. What else could you do? Even the points you tried to make were faulty in the extreme. But it's no wonder you ran of this weak milquetoast so rapidly and had to resort to telling an outright lie.

No such Constitutional Duty.

So what was that oath thingy I took when I joined the service, just some blather?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...

The same with the oaths our representatives took? Just bullshit with no meaning, then?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

My God, look here, below is a point you made that has some modicum of relevance, that is not completely false or a half-truth or misleading bullshit! Finally! Took you long enough.

No D.A. worth his paycheck would pursue a case he knows he is going to lose, no matter how guilty he knows the defendant is.

That may be true, and if Congress was a local DA and the Bushies just a couple of gang-rapers, I would completely agree with you. But they are not, and there are much larger issues at stake. I might also remind you that the US Government could not get Al Capone for his many overt criminalities. Did they give up? No, because they KNEW he was an arch-criminal, so they kept trying until they found a way, because Capone was a heinous arch-criminal who threatened the very foundation and fabric of the nation...just like the Bushies. And to stop trying to convict him would have been a gross dereliction of duty to society.

Oh, oh, busted AGAIN you are!

Lucky for you the Feds after Capone weren't like you. Lucky the Founding Fathers weren't like you either, because they NEVER would have started a revolution they had no chance of winning. It was only AFTER they won that people like you joined them. People like me, nadin, nashville and Joe were there from Day One.

If Nixon's resignation didn't deter Bush, why would an acquittal of Bush deter the next guy?

Wow, another staggering half-truth, can't quite call it an outright lie. Ummm...Bush was a full 26 years after Nixon. The Bushies who ran Reagan's presidency had to move very slowly and quietly, relative to the straight-up thefts, wiretapping and malfeasance of Nixon. Carter was elected, not Ford, and the Democrats gained larger majorities that helped them extend their control of Congress for some more years.

That doesn't constitute some form of deterrence? Crminals being delayed a decade or more in acheiving their goals is not a result of deterrance, eh? Criminals being forced to change, delay and tone-down their strategies is not deterrence? Maybe in your world, but not the Reality-Based World.

You know what makes me laugh? The Bushies have done such a number on you. You are their perfect Democrat. Scared to stand up to the Bushies in any meaningful way, contemptuous of anyone who suggests we do, and throughly convinced that nothing is wrong beyond a bad political situation.

You do their work for them. Who needs Concern Trolls when the Bushies have you?

There was a time that I could be patient with people like you, who's cowardice is almost, if not more, responsible than the Bushies (who made you that way by beating you with a stick, metaphorically-speaking, until you got into line) for where our nation is today. But not now. Out of patience, you see.

Like the Toady Media, the Bushies don't need to beat you to make you cower anymore, you do it yourself with no prodding required. Not only that, you try to shout down anyone who shows a modicum of backbone. The Bushies certainly got their money's worth with you.

You really do deserve to live in Communist China or Putin's Russia with an attitude like that. Quite frankly, we could replace you with a deserving Chinese or Russian who would appreciate freedom after never having had it, and who would likely NEVER cower as you do if they were threatened with Bushie/ChiCom/Putin-style criminality taking away the beautiful gift they just received for the first time in their lives.

Nancy? Harry? Is that you? Or just one of your aides?

:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

80. best post today.

[Occulus]

19. The magic words in your post were "media coverage"

Freeze up governmental operations within an entire body of Congress. That would, by its very nature, force the media into covering it. They would have little choice in the matter if they intend to cover Congress at all.

Make it political theater to rival... why, to rival the Clinton impeachment. Have the presiding member wear a pink tutu if that's what it takes for cameras and microphones to be present in force. Make it a spectacle. Have Hollywood set designers come in to dress up the chamber as if the were The Hague, if need be, to get the cameras in the building and the airtime needed to present the evidence to the public. Buy the time, during Prime Time. Spare no expense.

(I say those things with heavy sarcasm, but my point is, spend the money to get the eyeballs. It really is just that simple.)

And then parade the Articles and the evidence before the nation and the world, and let the chips fall where they may. I guarantee you that many more people will see the crimes as impeachable than did the sum total of all supporters of Clinton's impeachment. Most people in this country, to be crude, don't know jack shit about what he's done, because it hasn't been on teevee and "that was just online".

To advocate that we not even try to do this is to advocate a cover for those who did the deeds. It is the same as not offering relevant evidence and pretending it doesn't exist in any low-level court case (do prosecutors wait until a murder suspect is less powerful and/or well-connected before they initiate a case?). That there are so many people on both sides of the fence regarding the whole question of beginning impeachment proceedings merely makes the distinction unenforceable- and yet, from a logical standpoint alone, the clear line in the sand remains.

This must happen; legally, ethically, and morally, it is a requirement. As Americans, as law abiding citizens, we can accept nothing less.

Finally, a note on Clinton's impeachment. I very firmly believe that the entire nation was hoodwinked into impeaching a sitting President for what was not an impeachable offense, among other reasons, for the purpose of making the currently sitting President more difficult to impeach. It fatigued the entire country to the very idea of impeachment, simply because the "crimes" were socially repugnant. It made us forget that every President has that threat constantly hanging over their heads.

With Clinton's impeachment, the Republicans made the very idea of impeachment unapproachable. People today associate impeachment with sleaze and icky stories about family-unfriendly topics, and that's very intentional. Not many people are willing to realize that they've been had- including a whole lot of people on this board- but the fact of the matter is, many of us have been made to forget why we have the process of impeachment in the first place.

It was never meant to deal with someone like Bill Clinton, even though that's what people think of when they hear the word "impeach". Impeachment was only and always intended to rid us of leaders exactly like George W. Bush.

[JDPriestly]

37. I disagree. Impeachment is a necessity.

The impeachment process will allow Congress to obtain the records of the events that have occurred so that the truth can be determined.

Unless Congress holds impeachment hearings, Bush aides will not be required to testify to Congress. Unless Congress holds impeachment hearings, Bush's records will be placed under lock and key in the Bush library or in limbo between the White House, the Archives and the Bush library and be unavailable for review and research. The truth will remain untold.

Impeachment is the process of discovering the truth. If the truth turns out to be troubling enough to enough Republicans in the Senate, if the truth is so shocking that Republican senators realize that they will not be re-elected unless they convict Bush, there will be a conviction. If the testimony and documents do not prove crimes egregious enough to merit the conviction of Bush, so be it.

[spanone]

53. i wish they would waste their time on impeachment instead of funding an illegal war

what else is this congress gonna do? they are not going to vote for a windfall profit tax on oil companies extravagant profits...they aren't going to do shit till this idiot is out of power....so i'd be happy for them to waste time on impeachment

[MonkeyFunk]

15. There's absolutely no reason to believe

there'd be 51 votes to convict, much less 67.

It's just contrary to all history to think 17 or more Republican senators would vote to remove Bush.

And if they do? We have President Cheney.

It's just not. gonna. happen.

[Joe Fields]

18. Fuck this "let's not try, because we don't have a chance" meme.

It sickens me to hear such bullshit.

If everyone adopted that attitude, we would still be living in caves and making grunting noises at each other.

on edit. We, as citizens don't just have rights. We also have responsibilities. And it is our responsibility to make our voices heard to our elected representatives, to voice our outrage, to demand action when necessary, and to urge them to fullfil their obligations, as dictated by their oaths that they took.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. It will fail

no matter much you want that not to be the case.

And if it were to pass, you'd have President Cheney.

You just have to accept that you're not going to get what you want. Adults are in charge and know it's a waste of time and effort, and we'd be hurt by pushing it.

NO national dem of any stature supports this. Give it up.

[JDPriestly]

39. Please see my post.

Impeachment is the only means through which we can insure that we can establish a record of the crimes of this administration that will be useful to historians in the future.

Bush has issued edicts protecting incriminating documents of past administrations. Immediately upon leaving office, he will "disappear" the evidence of his crimes. If you think the lost e-mails are suspicious, just wait until Bush leaves office. Remember Bush's missing reserve documents? Think of how many documents can just disappear between the White House and the Bush library.

No. Impeachment is a necessary although not necessarily politically popular procedure considering the facts about Bush's past conduct.

[The Magistrate]

28. Not having A Chance Of Success, Mr. Fields, Is An Excellent reason Not To Pitch A Fight

There is room for debate over whether that is an accurate assessment, or what the proper definition of success is in this matter, for it is possible to have a 'success' that does not reach to conviction and removal from office, but it is not unreasonable to conclude impeachment would fail of conviction, and that is not an unreasonable ground on which to state the game is not worth the candle and some other field would be a better focus for available energies.

It is quite true that there is not going to be an Impeachment Bill voted out of the House, and agitation aimed to secure passage of a Bill of Impeachment would certainly be futile accordingly. The symbolic gesture of Rep. Kucinich has some value, but it is no more than a gesture, and will be no more than that.

[Joe Fields]

29. That is your opinion, sir. I do not share it.

It is quite possible, as you say, that there will be no impeachment bill voted out of the house. If, however there were a bill of impeachment voted out of the house, then it would not be unreasonable to believe that the process of gathering evidence and presenting it during a trial could, itself, build momentum for a conviction. President Nixon was never impeached, but the evidence gathered to go to trial, if necessary swayed enough republicans that Nixon had little choice but to resign. In the case of Mr. Bush, there is a mountain of evidence to make a good case: a case good enough to sway all but the most hardcore Bush supporters.

I believe that the process would take so long, that, even if the bill were voted out of the house tomorrow, Bush would run the clock out on his presidency.

As to whether or not we should even try, that sir should not even be debated, in my opinion. Either you believe in the constitution and the rule of law, or you don't.

[The Magistrate]

32. There Would Be No Conviction, Sir

The vote is purely political, and enough of the Republicans would stand firm against conviction on grounds of pure partisanship and loyalty to their base of support. A Republican Senator who voted for acquittal might have serious problems, but one who voted for conviction would end his or her career on the spot: they would forfeit votes from the Republican base, and Democrats still would vote against them. Political life today is very different from the days of Nixon.

The rest of this is simply a fresh round in the old conflict between idealist and pragmatist, and my residence is in the latter camp. This division is mostly a matter of temperament and personal experience, and is insoluble by argument.

"An idealist is a person who, on noticing a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes it will make a better soup."

[Joe Fields]

34. If we could only get to the point of a trial, sir,

I would wager a thousand dollars with you that he would be convicted. The evidence would dictate it. Public outcry would demand no less. Republicans aren't totally stupid. They would come to realize that, if they wanted to save their political hides, they must throw the president under the bus.

[Yukari Yakumo]

45. What evidence? {nt}

[tom_paine]

30. Then please explain the Phony Clinton Impeachment and it's aftermath

all the way through the 2000 "election".

Did I miss something? Was not the Phony Clinton Impeachment ALSO doomed from the start?

Why, then did the Bushies proceed with it? Why then, did they enjoy so many ancillary successes because of it (see my post above) including making 2000 close enough to steal?

Why then, if it worked so well for the Bushies, without even a proper crime to impeach for, why would it not work for us with MULTIPLE FELONIES OPENLY PERFORMED to impeach for...a REAL IMPEACHMENT FOR REAL REASONS.

If we assume that one of the reasons for the Phony Clinton Impeachment was to seize the media megaphone and turn it into a 24/7 Bushie Lie Machine (with wild success that is STILL paying them dividends today) why would it not benefit us, win or lose, to do the reverse and that is get all the shit the Toady Media has been burying in front of American Eyes, a Truth Machine instead of a Bushie Lie Machine.

If their Phony Impeachment based on bullshit was so politically successful, why would our REAL Impeachment based on actual CRIMES not be successful, even if it failed to obtain a conviction?

If you can answer me these questions, Magistrate, you will go a long way towarsd convincing me of your position. Otherwise, I remain where I am.

[The Magistrate]

38. Your Analysis Above, Sir, Of the Potential Benefits Of Impeachment

Is pretty close to my own. It would have been, properly timed, an excellent piece of political theater that could have wounded the enemy grievously, perhaps even mortally, even though it would not have resulted in removal from office. The Republicans attempting a coup against President Clinton did seem to understand this, and did not really aim at removal from office, but at hamstringing President Clinton's administration, and did in some measure succeed at this, though, since he was a popular figure and they were widely disliked, they paid a serious long-term political price for that limited gain. It was only by serious rigging of the vote-count in a key state, aided by media complicity, and the power of Congressional incumbency, and 'a series of unfortunate events' in the world, that they were able to stave off paying the piper until '06.

In my view the time to have done this was late last year, and into the spring of this year. The calculations of our Congressional leadership in not doing so are sound enough conventionally, however. The most basic of them was simply that the Party benefited politically from the unpopularity of Bush to a sufficient degree that going for more was not worth the risk of upsetting a favorable situation, even if that risk was small. Note that, as a Democrat, my view is and will always remain that the Republicans were engaged in a coup between '96 and '98, and will never be forgiven for it by me. Loyalists on the other side would have the same attitude towards an impeachment and trial of Bush: persons of my acquaintance on the right see Watergate as a coup by Democrats to this day. There is to be said for the operational principle of not pressing a desperate foe to hard, lest he discover resources of fervor he might not otherwise have gained.

Regardless of my own personal view, it seems to me that the reasoning of many who do not share my view is sound enough to treat seriously, and show respect towards. They take a different view of a matter that any ought to be able to admit is fraught with uncertainties, and that does not make them enemies, or fools.

"Deem it not impossible for you to err."

[tom_paine]

47. Interesting. So you would have agreed with impeachment if the Dems had gotten

moving on it last year, but not now, for reasons of timing?

Actually, that is an excellent answer, and really, the first I have seen on this and related topics that actually has reason behind it.

Food for thought. Ultimately, we will have to agree to disagree because while I see your point, I believe there are two significant overriding factors at play here:

1) The Media: I won't go into how the Bush Lie Machine and the Coporate Toady Media have essentially fused. But let us just say that, in terms of Toady Media coverage, the very fact that the Toady Media almost IS the Bush Lie Machine, these days, makes an impeachment trial doubly necessary.

To elaborate: The Bushies, since Clinton and even before (remember Ollie North's supposed 95% approval rating during Iran-Contra testimony - does this not in retrospect seem like a prototype of the now-common Bushie Fabricated Lie laundered through Toady Media sources - designed to influence Congression Democrats?) have had a massive ally in the laughably called "Liberal Media".

As a result, any Bushie lie, no matter how factually or demonstrably wrong, gets trumpeted massively 24/7, then the correction/retraction much later (if there even is one) repeated only once and in an obscure place, thus it remains in the minds of most as "true".

Conversely, and we have all seen it dozens of times now, any Democratic factual truth that exposes the Bushie Fraud, like the Pentagon Propaganda Scandal, will be covered with a blanket of silence that would make Hitler or Stalin envious for it's "self-correcting" nature.

Because of this, an impeachment trial may be further necessary (beyond rule of law, criminal deterence, and leaving our descendants a free country) just to force the Toady Media to cover what they have been hiding for the Bushies all this time.

It may fail, the depths of Toady Media iniquities knows no bottom, but if an impeachment trial can't force them to cover the evidence, then it's pitchforks and torches time,

2) The immediacy of the Bushie Threat, the number of crimes, the way they were openly and contemptuously performed.

I would make more room for political calculation such as you lay out, if only the crimes were fewer, less severe, performed covertly like people who were ashamed rather than overtly like entitled tyrants throughout history.

But, IMO, we are well beyond that point. Once beyond that point, political consideration has to go by the wayside.

To analogize: If you find out kids are spray-painting your house at night, you might not call the cops right away. You might do any number of things from keep watch, to setting up a motion-sensitive camera to gather evidence. BUT if you found out someone seriously and sincerely wished you dead, and you knew that even at that moment they were hiring a hit-man to do you in, then you might not care so much about the nuances. Because it was a matter of life and death, you'd call the cops and arm yourself, or something like that but you would not delay.

But really, this discussion is moot. We all know that there is as much a chance of the Democrats in Congress standing up to Bushler in any meaningful way as there was of the German Social Democrats standing up in the Reichstag to oppose Hitler in any meaningful way.

(yes, I would love to be proven wrong about this, especially after November, but until that happens I will continue to say things like this)

And while I do not view you as enemy or fool, sir, I would ask you to try to be patient with those who do. We are all the angry frustrated "New Jews" in "Kinder and Gentler Nazi Germany". We are people without power in what was once the freest nation on Earth. We were born into a represetative democracy and we will likely die in an Inverted Totalitarianism or even a Classical Totalitarianism (if the belt tightens, I think Inverted will morph back into it's classical predecessor faster than you can say Halliburton Homeland Security Detention camps).

As I'm sure you know, it's a horrible way to be. Sometimes I would just rather not know, rather watch some Amerikan Idol and just forget. But that's the problem with knowledge. Once learned, there's no forgetting.

I am not trying to excuse bad behavior, but I do understand it. People here are as frustrated as the Tiennamen Square protestors, if not more, because at least the Chinese never lived it and lost it...they just never had it.

[The Magistrate]

50. That Is Pretty Much It, Sir

Comedy is not the only field in which timing is everything. Something which ought to have been done on Tuesday can often be the wrong thing to do on Friday. The nearness of the scheduled turn-over of office now would cause a serious press for impeachment to be viewed with both bewilderment and disdain by the general voting public, and taken as a species of 'rubbing it in' that is somehow beside the point. A better course at present would be an aggressive series of hearings on the usual topics over the summer, and we may yet see something approximating this.

[tom_paine]

83. Very good point and I mostly agree, except I feel "better late than never"

in such an extreme case as this.

But I understand your point, and I do believe (in the Fantasy World where an actual full-blown impeachment was a real possibility) that what you say may turn out to be true. I disagree because of the severity of the crimes and the fact that, thanks to the Toady Media and the Bush Lie Machine, nobody knows about most of them.

So, ultimately we must agree to disagree. However I thank you for the great conversation, as always, and I only wish that more DUers could debate as civilly and properly as you, could agree to disagree without rancor nor insult.

I also wish that I could better hold my temper better when presented with such infantile, juvenile "debating" and not give back as good or better than I got in the juvenile department when it happens.

Ah well, you're a better man than I in that regard, Magistrate.

See you 'round the boards! :hi:

[onenote]

56. the phony clinton impechment didn't serve the repubs that well

Oh, it solidifed their base, but it hurt them in the center. As a result, they suffered a historic loss of seats in the House in 1998 and continued to lose ground in Congress in 2000 while also losing the poplular vote for the presidency that year.

They likely would've continued to spiral downward in 2002 and 2004 but for 9/11.

[tom_paine]

84. Missing the forest for the trees. Short-term, maybe what you say is partially true

but long-term...well I have already addressed this in other posts so I will not repeat myself.

You may see what you see about that, but I think you are wrong and I strongly disagree.

[onenote]

55. You would've made a great advisor to General Custer

[Joe Fields]

73. You sure as hell would not have made a great advisor to our founding fathers.

You would be ridiculing them, telling them we couldn't possibly succeed in starting our own republic.

[tom_paine]

85. Exactly. n/t

[JDPriestly]

41. Conviction is not the point. Preserving the historical record is the point.

Remember the lost e-mails. A lot more will be lost if we do not impeach the president.

[Yukari Yakumo]

46. So the only reason you want to do it is because "it feels good"?

Could you be more insane?

[JDPriestly]

52. No -- to preserve the historical record.

Do you remember the missing e-mails? How about the destruction of the notes of the torture sessions?

Do you remember that Bush is not allowing his aides to testify before Congress?

Do you realize that the executive privilege that Bush claims may not end when Bush leaves office?

Bush is not above destroying evidence and denying access to witnesses AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. And there is a very strong legal argument that would permit him to do that.

If you read Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton states the reasons for the argument that Congress, not the courts are the proper venue for trying the president for the kinds of crimes that Bush has committed while president. Language in a court decision decided concerning the Clinton matter (Jones, Lewinsky, etc.) also suggest that courts will determine that a president even after leaving office cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office if they crimes were committed as a part of the president's official duties as opposed to his personal life.

It is not a matter of feeling good. It is a matter of allowing a president to be above the law.

The Constitution assigns to Congress and only to Congress the task of impeaching the president. It's up to Congress to act. It is almost too late to start acting now.

The Constitution clearly states that the president may not pardon in the case of impeachment.

Rread the fundamental documents. Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Research them.

Here is someone who agreed with me:

This is an excerpt from the testimony of SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI (D-NJ) at a hearing on this issue in the context of the Clinton impeachment:
....
It is my judgment, rather, that the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives provide for impeachment, the United States Senate sit in judgment, as a condition precedent to someone who occupied the presidency of the United States appearing before the criminal law; that any indictment would have to follow impeachment and an action by the United States Senate to remove a person from the presidency.

I believe this interpretation, based on these historic accounts, interpretations though limited to date, because I believe the founding fathers not only shared this judgment that criminal activity by a president was an offense generally against the body politic, that a political body must sit in judgment, but that they also understood that proceeding with a criminal trial against a president of the United States without impeachment would not only involve a problem with the separation of powers, a potential conflict between the divisions of the United States government, but also a potential paralysis of the government itself.

Indeed, it could be argued, if they did not have this concern and did not share my interpretation, why it is they would not have provided for the courts themselves to sit in judgment of a president and impeachment. There was no reason to give this power to the House of Representatives and then the United States Senate rather than the Supreme Court or some other tribunal of the federal courts other than an expression of concern about this conflict and the potential paralysis.
. . . .


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/paneltext090998.htm

[zeos3]

36. To quote Homer Simpson

"Bart...if somethings hard to do, it's not worth doing"

[tom_paine]

86. And is not Homer Simpson the Poster Child of Modern Imperial Amerika?

We need a new flag to differentiate us fromthe Old American Republic, and I think a small picture of Homer somewhere on it would be fitting and apropos.

It would also exude the dignity and perspicacity of the Modern Amerikan Imperial Subject (I include myself in that group, lest anyone accuse me being "elitist"...I'm no better than anyone else)

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. So, I suppose *you* can tell us how the Senate acquitting him would prevent him from being tried

once he's out of office?

Thanks..

[MercutioATC]

2. I don't think that inpeachment isn't justified...I just want us to keep our eye on the brass ring.

Look, at least 50% of the country...whether they like Bush or not...is resistant to impeachment. Some of that 50% are the voters that we're trying to get in November.

We've won the White House as long as we don't screw it up. We cam do so much more once we're in the driver's seat. I oppose anything that interferes with that goal, even if it's something as morally ethical as impeachment.

[Joe Fields]

6. And I just want our leaders to keep an eye on the constitution.

You can keep your brass ring.

[mvd]

9. That's how I see it

I think the other side usually means well, but I just disagree. I think Bush is so unpopular that once the evidence comes out, it would gather support even if it doesn't pass. It might also damage McCain more on foreign policy.

I don't think impeachment has to be the only thing we focus on.

[MercutioATC]

12. Don't get me wrong, Kucinich is providing a valuable service.

He's chronicling injustice. That's why I keep voting for him as my Congressman.

We still need to work for a Dem White House and Congress...and, granting that, we have to concentrate on those specific goals.

[HughMoran]

3. Love your avatar

Sorry :p

[Joe Fields]

8. Thanks. Seven years of Bush has given me a headache I can't get rid of.

[underseasurveyor]

13. living with fear and what-ifs hasn't accomplished diddly squat

well not for our side anyway.. reminds me of a 12 step saying, what's the definition of insanity? doing the same thing and expecting a different result:banghead:

Bravo on you Joe, BRA-VO:applause:

I happen to think that impeaching the bastards will do exactly the opposite of what the naysayers fear won't happen if we do.. hell who in their right mind would vote in any republican to office when the the current is in the process of being impeached..


I'm with you. i think taking risks is a good thing and i despise living in/with fear.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Your premise is just wrong

I don't oppose impeachment because I don't think it's warranted. It's not because I support the war, or support torture. It's not because I don't think things are all that bad.

It's because it's guaranteed to fail, and that will hurt us.

I wish you guys would stop attributing ill motives to people. just because we can count to 67

[Joe Fields]

20. And your ideology has a major disconnect.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. My ideology

has nothing to do with it.

I know it would never succeed - thus it's not something we should waste time on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. There are many reasons why people don't want it

and for the leadership, it will expose some of them to the crimes they have at the very least abetted

And trust me, cigars and sex are not kid friendly, but neither is torture. In fact, I'd rather have a talk on the birds and the bees than on water torture, sensory deprivation, cold, and other methods we have used in the very recent past, Hell, give me a cigar any day instead of special rendition, and spying on Americans. But I fear for many sex is something they get, and it is ickky. Torture is something distant, best left in history books or works of fiction. And we do not want to trouble our beautiful minds with such horrible things... and in many ways I see people who resist this, regardless of the memes, as truly afraid. They fear that at long last the US will have to answer for the crimes of its leaders. Fear that at long last we are like every body else... and not somehow chosen by providence and ahem, special. (American Exceptionalism) And for a few, (and this includes a small number in Congress) it is a real fear that if we do this, we will loose the election... never mind the history of impeachment proves them wrong.

Then there is the leadership crew.

Why are they so opposed? In some cases, if this went forth, they'd have to recuse themselves, as they were briefed on torture and they raised absolutely no objections. The same goes for the violations of our rights, by massive spying, and other examples

For them it is also fear. Fear that they will be exposed, and that they somehow, at least morally, of not criminally, they are liable.

Mind you, most of these folks, on either level, also believe in Empire... and for the sake of Empire we need to do this... and to them I say... fine, lets suspend the constitution and declare that at long last the republic is dead. It is either that, and getting a tyrant for life, or making a last stand to try to save whatever remains of what his country once was.

[Swamp Rat]

24. k&r

[HardWorkingDem]

25. I don't think ANY Du'er is against impeachment, but many realize...

it is just not going to happen with the current mix of politicians in Washington and under this thinking it is best to keep Bush around as an albatross rather than turn him into a pitiful "victim" (and I apologizes before hand for any insult a real victim feels when being compared to Bush).

[Enrique]

26. let me answer with a few questions of my own

borrowing your style:

Since you don't care if impeachment risks the chances of Obama and the congressional democrats winning in November, then you must want McCain and the republicans to win.

Since McCain is itching for a fight with Iran even more than Bush has been, you don't mind if that fight happens and millions of Iranians die.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, that's going to necessitate a draft for sure. You impeachment advocates obviously don't care about that.

McCain would be the third term of George W. Bush. Why do impeachment advocates want to prolong this nightmare? I think the impeachment advocates don't realize just how damaging Bush's policies have been, so they aren't serious about the need to end them.

I can't stress to impeachment advocates enough: George W. Bush has been a disaster for America, we simply cannot afford another term.

[Joe Fields]

31. No one person is bigger than this country, Enrique.

The rule of law comes first. The constitution trumps any candidate. And besides, you are working on the shaky premise that, if we actually went through with impeachment, then Obama would lose the election. That may or may not be true.

[JackRiddler]

35. False premise from the start: Who says...

impeachment would risk Obama's chances?

FOXNEWS? Rush? Pelosi?

Who defines the world?

I say exposing the Bush regime for what it is can only help Obama's chances.

I say leaving the regime in place to steal a THIRD election exactly like the last two can only harm Obama's chances.

[Raksha]

44. I totally agree! I have never, EVER understood the "political"

argument, and now less than ever. Bush's approval level is already at 25%. There's some reason it can't go any lower, to 18% or 15% or 12%??? I think that not COULD it go lower, it inevitably WOULD as people who still depend on the corporate media became aware of Bush/Cheney's crimes for the first time. They'd be forced to pay attention whether they want to or not.

An impeachment trial can only help Barack Obama win by a bigger landslide than he will anyway. The "Bush's third term" meme is already damaging McCain, with full exposute of the Bush mafia any and all connections would become positively radioactive. As someone said upstream, we are talking about a REAL impeachment for REAL reasons, not the bogus Clinton BJ farce. And even that little sideshow didn't hurt the Republicans politically. Al Gore was forced to distance himself from Clinton, but the Republicans are not in a comparable situation. They aren't trying to run Cheney for POTUS (although I'd love to see them try) and they aren't trying to run Jebbie either.

I don't think there would be any problem getting 67 senators including Republicans to vote for conviction. It's the only way they'd have the slightest chance of surviving politically, simply for BEING Republicans. And even voting for conviction might not be enough to save to their hides--that would depend on how complicit they turned out to be. Unfortunately, the same holds true for the Dem enablers, but so be it.

I don't understand these people who say an impeachment trial has zero chance of resulting in conviction. How can you be so sure of that before it happens? It's not guaranteed to succeed but it's not guaranteed to fail either. It's a calculated risk.

The Republicans aren't afraid to take a calculated risk just to score political points, while the Democrats believe that not only will they lose political points, they are afraid to take a calculated risk even to save their Constitution and their country. That just doesn't make any sense.

[onenote]

57. Because people care first and foremost about how they;re going to pay

to get to work, assuming they still have a job. Because they worry about how they can afford to go to the store, buy groceries to feed their families, and get home. Because they worry about their sons, daughters, husbands and wives still in harm's way in a stupid war that should never have been started. Because they worry about how they are going to afford health care for their families.

And because they don't see how an impeachment circus -- and it would be a circus with attacks and counterattacks -- will help them with any of those concerns, they will be extremely unhappy with a change in the direction of the national debate from "what are we going to do to fix the mess were in" to "how do we punish those who got us into it, who, by the way, are going to be gone from office in a matter of months whether impeachment takes over the national debate or not."

[EC]

33. I'm hoping President Obama will join

the World War Criminal court again and let the World try GW and Dick.

[Firespirit]

40. Your logic is faulty

You're assuming that everyone who is against impeachment is some kind of bot on everything else. Quite the contrary. Those of us who oppose it have an entirely different way of thinking, and you are not applying this alternate way of thinking to your scenarios.

Suppose he institutes the draft. Those of you who are against impeachment, but of draft age, or have children who are draft age won't mind, will you? After all, congress won't stop him, right? Or Obama might look weak, in a time of war, and well, since it's more important to win elections, no matter what the cost, then you won't mind reporting to the draft board, right?

I am of draft age, but Hell yes I would mind that. And I wouldn't go, even if it meant finagling a medical deferment a la Limbaugh. If it is about winning, then it is about winning, period, not just elections, but also about personally getting ahead. It is important to win elections, but that does not mean that each and every one of us must personally go along with whatever scheme. I would not fault someone for pressing every advantage to avoid the draft. Good for them. I don't really understand the antipathy for right-wing "chickenhawks" either; while I disagree strongly with them about going to war, I can't hold it against them for wanting to preserve themselves.

And when Bush finally does away with the remnants of the first amendment freedoms, well, since congress will want to keep its powder dry, then you'll just adapt and use mirrors in the sun, or send smoke signals, but you'll figure out something. After all, if congress won't fight for it, why should you? They know best.

What about those of you who own guns? Suppose Bush declared martial law and went after your guns? Suppose congress didn't stop him, because they didn't want to look soft? Suppose Pelosi said there weren't enough votes to keep him from it. Then what? Would you shrug and say, "Well,guess I'll just have to turn my guns in."

If we became that authoritarian, I'd switch sides and work from within to sabotage the structure. I've always been of the opinion that this is the way to go. We had a lot more revealed, a lot more progress made, from whistleblowers or ex-insiders than from protesters waving signs on the street.

"I want to win, period" and "I'm OK with personally putting myself at risk" are inherently incompatible, and I swear that the right wing gets this a lot better than the left. It's frustrating to see my side impale itself on its own sword, time after time, in the pursuit of some nebulous purity of deeds. A person who wants to win no matter what does not do that sort of needless sacrifice.

[Joe Fields]

81. You've made my case for me, and you don't even know it.

Of course you'd mind, if Bush instituted the draft. I didn't think a sarcasm smilie was needed, it was so obvious. So, when your ox is gored badly enough, you do care about the behavior of the White House. So then, what you really are telling me is that, for you, upholding the constitution is a matter of convenience.

[loyalsister]

48. Giving Bush an opportunity to walk away "right"

and triumphant is a good reason to not send this to the Senate where he would not be convicted.

I for one do not want to watch him walk cheerfully away with his last hurrah as the Republicans pick up seats in the next election.

If he is perceived as correct in this Republicans come out with a big advantage and the impeachment is virtually nullified historically.

[Joe Fields]

63. If we do not try and hold him accountable, then who should we ever hold

accountable, and for what? If not him, if not now, if not for the 35 very good reasons, then we should suspend the constitution, declare a dictatorship and do completely away with the rule of law. If and when that time ever does come, look in the mirror. The person staring back at you will bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen.

[loyalsister]

68. Nothing about my post says we don't hold them accountable

There is a practical time to push the goal furthest to that end, however.
I admire Dennis Kuccinich's "devil may care" stance, but I think that this may be the opener to future investigation when more flexible opportunity is available.
They can be held accountable when they are no longer sitting in office.
They do not have to be impeached for maximum effect.
The most important thing is that everything is revealed. All of the dirty mess uncovered. There is not enough time for the kind of thorough investigation that will accomplish that goal. It will also take more power than congress has. A different sort of power than congress has. We don't want to allow those books to close with "jeopardy" until we can get an AG who can attack it.

[Joe Fields]

69. everything in your post says exactly that.

If you think the corruption of this administration will be pursued by an Obama administration, then I have some great oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

[cali]

49. Why anyone would bother answering your abusive OP is a mystery to me.

But let's play. Let's deconstruct your post. Your assumptions are nothing but attacks on people who don't agree with all mighty you. How do you know that people who oppose impeachment at this time, are willing to ignore the constitution? You don't. It's simply an assumption rooted in nothing substantive.

You assume that people who don't support impeachment, didn't mind the instigation of an illegal war. How absurd. You mean people like Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold and hundreds of other legislators and millions of ordinary people who opposed the war, actually didn't? Phaw.

More ridiculous assumptions: Bush can institute a draft, Bush can do away with first amendment rights, Bush can declare martial law, blah, blah, blah. He can't do any of those things. And he won't. You've predicted all of the above here for years. Typical secular apocalyptic fear mongering.

I support impeachment, but I at least grasp that it's a discretionary power, and I understand that no matter how much I want it, it's very unlikely to happen.

[Joe Fields]

65. You bothered.

I'll start worrying about my positions, if you ever start agreeing with me. Have a nice day.

[PeaceNikki]

51. Let's see... those with a different opinion of how this should be handled:

• Ignore atrocities and oaths of office
  
• Lack "balls" (which, by the way is a sexist, immature and assholish thing to say)
  
• Don't "mind" that Bush started the war
  
• Are complacent of war with Iran
  
• Value elections "more than" illegal war
  
• Don't want the administration to be held accountable
  

Do you expect resonable discourse with those types of accusations or are you just trying to "shame" people into your line of thinking?

[Joe Fields]

67. Let's take these one at a time...

Maybe you can explain to me how you DON'T ignore atrocities and oaths of office, by NOT holding bush accountable, through the impeachment process. Or is it enough for you to acknowledge that George has been a bad boy? By what other means do you feel will satisfy justice?

You define "lack balls" that way. I don't share your view. If you wish to view that phrase as you describe, then fine. We have a difference of opinion.

If you don't wish to hold Bush accountable, and the only way to hold him accountable is through impeachment, then it is obvious that you don't mind what he did. Your apathy also makes you passively complicit with his actions. To say you care about what he did to start this war, and not want to press to hold him accountable is a major idealogical disconnect.

If you are willing to give Bush a pass on one war, why should anyone think you would hold him accountable for starting a second one?

Anyone who is willing to place any man or any election above the constitution is helping to put this country on a slope so slippery, no one will be able to stand on it. Why should subsequent administrations, be they democratic or republican, adhere to the rule of law and the constitution, if they know that this administration has been able to literally get away with murder?

Finally, to say that you want to hold Bush accountable, but continue to come up with any excuse to keep it from happening just rings hollow.

Either you are for the constitution and the rule of law or you aren't.

[BlooInBloo]

54. I love the superiority of the leftier-than-thou wing.

[Joe Fields]

70. some of you seem to have forgotten that it's really not about

being a democrat or republican. It's about being an American first. Party loyalty means nothing, if both parties are willing to allow the laws of the land to be circumvented for political gain.

At what price victory?

[BlooInBloo]

71. blahblahblah... No one else is a real American... blahblahblah.. .you're the only ones who care...

blahblahblah.

[tom_paine]

87. Nice straw man. Irrelevant and totally bullshit, but an excellent debating tactic.

Few are saying that. But perhaps you hear what you want to hear.

[bryant69]

58. Will Kucinich's Bills of Impeachment succeed in removing Bush from power?

In your opinion?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Joe Fields]

78. I can't answer that question. I will say that it's a start.

No one else has shown the political courage to take the steps that Kucinich took. Without those articles of impeachment, there could be no process for accountability.

[sofa king]

59. My one qualm.

I don't want impeachment to take the ceremonial place of the criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and revocation of citizenship of many Bush Administration officials. I think that Nixon's resignation forestalled a similar house-cleaninng, which in turn led directly to this most criminal of Presidencies.

The impeachment process to me is only a framework for the overall process of removing these jackals from public service, permanently and forever, that they may never disgrace our nation again.

[yellowdogintexas]

61. if hearings are held, they will be heavily publicized and the evil of this administration will be

exposed and permanently documented ..even if House does not vote to send to Senate

If Senate votes to acquit, the record is still there.

This would hopefully make them not acceptable in polite society as noted in another post earlier

edited to add: another poster, jdpriestly, said it much better than I did. :yourock: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[slackmaster]

64. Guns?

I lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. It would take one of two things for me to support impeachment procedings, no matter the crime.

Either

1) The possibility, albeit possibly remote, that the impeachment procedings would succeed.

or

2) The balance of probabilities that failed impeachment procedings would do more good than harm.


The split in the Democratic party is *not* between those who support and oppose impeaching Bush, it's between those who support and oppose introducing impeachment procedings which will inevitably fail.

It's exactly the same principal as any other criminal proceding - you don't prosecute unless/until you have at least some chance of a conviction.

How bad the crime is doesn't enter into it - prosecuting a mass murderer who will inevitably be aqcuitted is just as much a waste of time as prosecuting a pickpocket.

The people who are effectively opposing Bush and his crimes are the ones opposing impeachment procedings, because those procedings will achieve nothing except to help the Republicans.

Supporting impeachment procedings is just a form of "enabling".

[BlooInBloo]

72. "principle", but yah overall.

[Joe Fields]

74. So then, you believe that upholding the constitution is a matter of convenience?

Spoken with the clarity and conviction of a true patriot.

[BlooInBloo]

76. Answered in #71

[Joe Fields]

77. That was no answer.

It was more the babbling of a fool.

[tom_paine]

89. Correct Joe, that was no answer. It was an insult.

Personally, I am glad you dished a little of it back by calling a fool a fool.

Amazing how many people, even on our side, have come to adopt the Bushie way of looking at things, of speaking and debating.

None of us is fully immune. As one American Diplomat said after returning from Germany in the early 30s, "The Nazi Propaganda, always surrounding you, just starts to seep in."

Which is exactly what good propaganda is supposed to do, seep in and change people without them knowing about it or being able to defend against it.

And even here on DU the power of Bushie-Nazi propaganda to shape minds is evident.

Anyone who could think that post #71 was anything but an insult and a smear is not thinking straight.

[Joe Fields]

91. As you and I, and a few others are aware, tom, it isn't easy

to steel yourself against all of the insidious forms of propaganda. It comes at us from all sides. Most people do not realize that, when an "expert" comes on television, to give their "learned" opinion, they are actually shilling for someone who has paid them to push some type of agenda. A constant barrage of this wears people down, slowly changes public opinion, and, like you said, seeps into the subconscious of those who are fully aware of it.

It is one of the main reasons we are in the mess we find ourselves in today.

[tom_paine]

93. And DU is one of the most enlightened, conscious places on the web.

Quite amazing. When I look at that fact, and how we are still in the minority even here even at this late date with Bushie intentions bright as a red siren, I can see no way out for this nation or our species.

I hate to be "pessimistic" (some might call it realistic) but reality is reality.

Even at this late date, so few can see, so few want to see.

It is easy (and intellectually lazy) to say that people are stupid, and I think it goes much deeper than mere intelligence.

I don't think all the people counseling caution and cowardice on this thread are stupid. far from it. Hell, I've met BUSHIES that were downright intelligent. Intelligence, I've discovered, has very little to do with it.

I think the key factor at work here is CONSCIOUSNESS, that ineffable quality that has nothing to do with a person's intelligence.

I've met high-school dropouts who were amazingly conscious, and I have met brilliant Ph.D.s who had none, and thus appeared "stupid" when discussing things that required consciousness to fully understand.

That kind of consciousness is hard to define. If I was to try I would say consciousness is the ability to peer beyond existing political and sociological structures, but I know that is a badly inadequate definition.

People who are highly conscious are often seen by others to be cynical. This is unfortunate and primarily because the human realities that lie beyond the staged dumbshow of politics are very troubling indeed.

This is less a factor of cynicism that it is reality.

Consciousness doesn't make us better than anyone else. It is a talent, a skill, and like everyone else, we are strong in some things, weak in others.

Consciousness is often mistaken by others as "elitism", hell, that natural human tendency has been turned into a cottage industry by Bushie Propagandists. Remember, it wasn't very long ago in human history that it was open season on anyone displaying consciousness, because we are so dangerous to the power structure by our very existence that those in power, who rely on a lack of consciousness among their subject populaces, especially the authoritarian powers, want us silenced, powerless or dead if we make a fuss about the first two.

Think about it, from long before the Church tried to discredit Galileo for raising consciousness (in the medieval times, scientific literacy WAS a form of consciousness, undercutting the power of the powerful...not so much today it seems, though definitely still partially the case; witness the "intelligent design" movement) about the Earth not being the center of the universe, religious and political authorities were harassing, punishing, beating and murdering anyone who displayed an iota of consciousness.

They gave whatever reasons they wanted to: heresy, impiety, or really nonsensical crazy stuff like "they're drinking the blood of our children at night" or "they're a witch". But when dealing with "unconscious people", even today as we see with Bushiganda, it doesn't have to make sense, not a bit of it, to rile the unconscious people to go after the conscious. There is something deep within human nature at work here, I think.

Another topic of conversation for another day: Just what has been the large-scale effect on humanity of this many thousands of years of selection against consciousness? We were murdered, beaten, denied an economic living and thus there can we no doubt we reproduced less frequently than the rest of the populace.

NOTE: I do not believe genetics has much to do with the ability of people to be conscious or not, I do not believe it is predetermined. But a way of thinking CAN be killed (or suppressed to the point where it is like unto death) if anyone displaying that way of thinking is killed or otherwise suffers negative consequences. Also, children often follow the philosphies of their parents.

Hell, Joe, even 50 years ago, if we had been outspoken in Mississippi or Alabama, we might have been beaten or murdered like Cheney, Schwimmer and Goodman. No, it is almost certain we WOULD have been beaten at the very least, our properties vandalized and maybe, if we refused to shut up about Civil Rights for African-Americans and other articles of displayed consciousness, then murdered. And that was only "yesterday" in historical terms.

50 years from now, I wonder if that will again be the case. If so, we should be joyous that we got to enjoy this brief window in human history, now closing.

Recently, I had a thread which asked people to name a specific epitaph for the human species, to be carved in 100-foot-high letters in the Redwall of the Grand Canyon. Another one comes to my mind right now as I ponder the history of consciousness.

We naturally selected against all the traits that could have saved us.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. Impeachment procedings won't help uphold the constitution.

Any more than praying for Bush to be struck by lightning will.

Both are activities whose stated goal is punishing Bush and upholding the constitution, and neither will help to achieve that goal.

The best way to defend the constitution is to elect a President who will respect it. And impeachment procedings will make that harder.

It's not a perfect way - it will involve Bush probably going unpunished - but it's the best way available of preventing future violations.

So I guess the answer to your question is "yes, technically, and so do you, even if you don't admit it".

[Joe Fields]

92. Excuse me? Praying that Bush will be struck by lightning is a stated goal

which would uphold the constitution? I think you missed more than a few civics lessons.

Maybe you can explain to me how a President Obama, who clearly stated during the campaign, that he felt that the actions of the Bush administration did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, would somehow be remotely interested in pursuing action once in office? While you are at it, maybe you could also explain to me why you would be so sure that any future administration would be interested in protecting and defending the constitutional rights of our citizens, when they are fully aware that Bush was able to stomp all over the constitution and get away with his crimes scott free.

[nashville_brook]

79. BIDEN will support impeachment if he goes after Iran.

[mmonk]

88. They are following their leaders' excuses.

I think they do so using the same rationalizations they have been fed without knowing that there are some Democrats in Congress that want some things hidden from the people that would implicate and/or embarrass them.

[Overseas]

94. Exactly. IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

How many violations of our own constitution and international law do we need? What is a clearer high crime than falsifying reasons to send the whole country into a war that kills hundreds of thousands and racks up trillions in deficits?