Bush hasn't done anything illegal or impeachable

[mdmc]

If he did, you know the Democratic Party would hold him accountable. There is no way that the Democrats would allow any crimes to go unpunished. The democrats would prosecute Bush's crimes, even if they knew their prosecution was fruitless and politically unpopular.

The Democrats stand for truth, justice, and the American way. The only reason that the Dems won't impeach Bush is because he has not done anything worthy of impeachment.

Right?

[unpossibles]

1. uh... no. nt

[Cleita]

2. So what you are saying is that many who say they are Democrats to get

elected to office are really DINOS? Yeah, I agree. Real Democrats would have been picking out the orange jumpsuits in his first term.

[BrklynLib at work]

3. If only that were true...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. And if you believe that

then you know that the majority of people hanging around the Religion/Theology Forum are all believers.

[krispos42]

5. He's done EVERYTHING impeachable!

:rimshot:

[sharesunited]

6. The Dems benefitted by a backlash against the last impeachment.

They don't want to bring that same kind of backlash onto themselves.

Look, we get to elect a president every four years. Focus! Focus!

[mdmc]

9. Our party would allow crimes to go unpunished

because it is politically popular to do so? :(

[lame54]

11. The last impeachment was bullshit - this time NOT impeaching is bullshit

[Raksha]

48. And most people KNOW the difference

between bullshit and substance!!!

The last impeachment was bullshit - this time NOT impeaching is bullshit

WHY do people keep equating them, as though the two scenarios were equivalent and practically interchangeable? Even most liberals do that, and it drives me up the walls!!!

The contexts aren't even close to interchangeable. Most people KNOW this, and the results of one have almost nothing to do with the possible results of the other.

[Beausoleil]

14. Yeah, that worked out real well for the Dems

8 years of B*sh and 6 years of a totally Repug-controlled Congress.

Historically, impeachment proceedings tend to favor the party that brought the impeachment.

The argument that impeaching B*sh will hurt electoral chances for the Dems does not hold up to historical scrutiny.

Just sayin'.

[onenote]

33. every impeachment situation is different.

In 230 years there have been three presidential impeachment efforts: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. To conlcude that "historically" impeachment proceedings tend to favor the party that brought the impeachment is to assume that the three situations are comparable and reflect some sort of tendency that can be assumed to be applicable to the current situation. That seems unlikely.

[Beausoleil]

40. There is also no reason to assume

that impeachment of B*sh would hurt the Dems electoral prospects, which is one of the main reasons impeachment is "off the table".

"When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of Impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.

Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by Dems in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction -- suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/impeachfaq

[onenote]

41. the main reason impeachment is off the table is that there aren't sufficient votes for it

Virtually no Democrat serving in the House made impeachment an issue when they ran in 2006 and the public, apart from a passionate minority, aren't clamoring for it. There are more than enough Blue Dogs and other Democrats from moderate/conservative districts who have no interest -- and are under no pressure from within their district -- in pursuing impeachment when what they are hearing from their constituents is not about impeachment, its about gas prices, the war, health care, etc.

[bvar22]

27. Not exactly.

The Dems lost the next two presidential elections (against an IDIOT), seats in the House and Senate, and a number of Governorships.

It was only in 2006 that the momentum began to be reversed.

[onenote]

34. Interesting view of history

In 1998, the first year in which the Clinton impeachment effort may have had an impact on the election, the repubs suffered historic losses in the House --- it had been more than a hundred years since an out party had failed to gain seats in the House during the sixth year of a presidency and the repubs managed to lose seats. They lost additional ground in COngress in 2000, lost the popular vote for the presidency, and managed to capture the wh only through action by the SCOTUS. And its likely that the repubs would've lost even more ground in 2002, but something happened in between 2000 and 2002. YOu may have heard of it, although your analysis ignore it. The impact of 9/11 altered the political landscape in 2002 and was still reverberating in 2004. It was not until 2006 that the effects of 9/11 had worn off enough (or, more precisely, been erased by chimpy's mishandling of the war, repub corruption, the Katrina disaster, and other repub fiascos).

[n2doc]

29. Tell that to Al Gore n/t

[electropop]

30. The backlash happened because the Gingrich/Hastert impeachment was BULLSHIT

and the public knew it. The public also knows that impeachment of Bush is not bullshit, but an urgent necessity. If we don't do it quickly, he'll invade Iran and then we're really up shit creek. That catastrophe will probably be the end of America.

[onenote]

35. if the public knows that impeachment is an urgent necessity, why does the public care so little?

During the 2006 elections, 435 members of the House and one-third of the Senate stood for election. In how many of those races was impeachment made an issue? How many of the candidates who made it an issue won? In the past six months, a half dozen or so Democrats have competed for the party nomination. Between them, they have given 100s of speeches, appeared on numerous debates, town halls, been interviewed on newspapers and on TV. How often has impeachment come up? Why, if the public feels its an urgent necessity, have most of the candidates not talked about it. Why, in every poll that is taken of the nation's priorities, do issues like the war, health care, gas prices, jobs lead the way, and impeachment makes nary a dent?

A number of people feel passionately about impeachment. BUt the majority -- a considerable majority -- either doesn't support it or doesn't feel very strongly about it.
That is the reality and that is why impeachment isn't going to happen.

[electropop]

43. How many polls even ask about it? It's off the table.

I don't think pollsters, media, or candidates even want to know about it.

[onenote]

44. well, if the public knows its an urgent necessity, doesn't that mean they know about it

If the public doesn't know about impeachment, how do they know its an urgent necessity?

There haven't been polls about impeachment in more than six months from what I can tell, but a poll from last November (the ARG) poll certainly seems to indicate that the public, even though a majortiy thinks impeachable offenses have been committed, don't view going through the process as an urgent necessity (or, indeed, a necessity at all).

Also, there have been polls asking about the public's "priorities" and while those polls probably don't specfically list impeachment, they generally have an "other" category and the other category generally gets low single digits, which again suggests that there aren't a lot of folks that have impeachment at the forefront of their thoughts about what Congress should be doing.

[Zhade]

42. Yeah, let criminals walk!

Such fucking cowardice.

[AndyA]

7. You forgot the sarcasm smilie.

Lying to the American people, Congress, and the United Nations in order to start a war against a sovereign nation that had not done anything aggressive against the United States is enough to warrant impeachment, I would think.

If that's not good enough, how about outing a COVERT CIA agent who was undercover looking for weapons of mass destruction during a time of war, and for political reasons?

If you still need more, how about authorizing the torture of prisoners, a violation of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions?

One could go on and on and on. Yes, there is every reason to warrant impeachment. We have a criminal Democratic Congress who is no doubt being blackmailed into taking no action against Bush.

Either that, or they are being very clever and waiting until the current mis-administration is out of office and a new Dem President is in charge to go after Bushco. But that would require a spine and fortitude that I am afraid is sorely lacking with the current bunch.

We need a clean sweep in all three houses: the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Only then will things get better for ALL Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual preference, religious beliefs, etc. :(

[mdmc]

10. I never use that smilie

never!

[trof]

49. OK, but I 'got' it anyway.

;-)

[chill_wind]

8. Lord knows, there's no massive documentation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3465689#3469726

[kentuck]

12. It's politically unpalatable...

Or so they think.

[paparush]

13. Sarcasm tag...use it liberally..so to speak ;-)

[Winterblues]

15. It is the perfect sound bite..It has logic and rationale.

It doesn't have any bearing on the truth but in America today who cares about that. Ask any Republican if five felony counts for Lying has any bearing...Scooter Libby anyone..

[rateyes]

16. Bush is for nothing but truth, justice, and the American way....

:sarcasm:

[mdmc]

17. no need for the smilie

I know what you mean my friend:)

[Indenturedebtor]

18. Yet more machiavellian nonsense that has served us all so "well"

1/100 people seems inclined to do the right thing for it's own sake unfortunately.

[grace0418]

19. He hasn't done anything illegal or impeachable in the last ten minutes maybe.

That I know of anyway. Hard to say for sure.

[poliscifanboy]

20. Not only has he done illegal stuff

But he is pure and utter evil! He desires to destroy the earth and all who live here just so him and some of his buddies can make a few bucks and have sick fun torturing innocent people. Gitmo bay prison is his personal sadistic play ground. I know that instead of going to texas he is going to cuba to kill innocent men, women and children who he calls "terrorists"

[SirDaddybear]

28. Satan himslf....

would have been a preferable WH resident.

[2hip]

21. Impeachment is hard work

You don't really expect them to earn their keep, do you? (Silly serf!)

[mdmc]

36. agreed

[jtrockville]

22. That's how history will record it, since there's been no prosecution.

And he's set a precedent. Everything he's done (AND MORE) will be done by the next corrupt cabal to gain power. Count on it.

[ananda]

23. Lol.

That was funny.

Dems get a spine and impeach?

Heaven forfend.

[mmonk]

24. Riiiiiiiight. Of course.

[RaVeN_MeaD]

25. Are you serious........Is he serious? nt

[dorkulon]

45. No. /nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. I was listening to the Senate torture hearings earlier, and some Repuke slipped in that some Dem

members of the Judiciary Committees new about the "techniques" and didn't say that there was anything wrong with it.

Now this is one of the reasons why the Dems don't think he should be Impeached.

[electropop]

31. It's probably a lie.

The regime has claimed they told Congress about all kinds of crap, but it's mostly lies. Even when they did tell a select few, they forbade them from acting on or sharing the information. What kind of BS is that?

Of course, I would have preferred that the members involved would blow the whistle and flip the bird. Sorry to mix metaphors.

[Disturbed]

32. 33 Articles of Impeachment were too many.

Here are a few that meet the actual requirements.


Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

[mdmc]

37. awful

:(

[uponit7771]

54. YEAP!!! Thom Hartman has it right!!! Some FEW Dems were TOLD about this & Pelosi is tryin to protect

...THEM!!!

[Octafish]

38. It's like people are just LOOKING for reasons to pick on George W Bush.

I can't think of a single reason he deserves to be impeached.

[MadMaddie]

39. Ummm...."Crimes against Humanity" for starters....* and his cadre

can be prosecuted for starting a war of agrression.....based on absolute lies.

Federal Crimes...Graft...War Profiteering....perhaps even Treason

[mdmc]

46. except for that

he done nothing wrong

[TheWatcher]

47. If you are being sarcastic or at the very least ironic

Good One.

If you're being SERIOUS.....

Seek Help.

[mdmc]

50. Are you saying that crimes have been committed

and that Bush is above the law? Or are you saying that crimes have been committed and that the Democratic Party is willing to overlook these crimes out of political considerations (justice is not politically popular)?

Some here think that it is a right wing smear to claim that the Democratic Party is nothing more then a lesser evil right wing corporate party filled with wimpy DINOS. Others must think that Bush has not done anything deserving of chImpeachment.

[uponit7771]

55. Thom Hartman said it right, The Bush admin TOLD some dems about their actions. Pelosi is protecting

...seats because Bush will use his disclosure as cover against impeachment.

Dems are being blank mailed and Pelosi doesn't want to give up those seats.

[mdmc]

56. So we (the Dems) KNOW that impeachable crimes have been

committed, and we (some of us, the elected democratic officials privy to this information) agreed that the President should be taking these actions.

So, in effect, we can't hold Bush accountable because we knew and supported what he was doing all along.

That sounds about right. Any facepainters (gotta support the home team - David Puddy) out there care to defend the honorable Democrats?

[TheWatcher]

57. I personally, do not wish to do so.

As far as I'm concerned, they are Complicit at this point.

Welcome to the Banana Republic.

[mdmc]

58. this is very sad

peace.lowstress...

[TheWatcher]

60. It IS very sad.....

It is what our country has become.

There is hope. It is very waning, but it is always there. Not the platitude that our nominee throws at you. But the actual thing, which comes from the strength of the heart and the mind. And we must not give that up.

Peace and lowstress to you too. :hi:

[mdmc]

63. both of us have been here at DU for a long time

it is hard for me to accept that the party has fallen so far into despair.

[Squatch]

51. They impeached Clinton for a blowjob...

Using that as the measuring stick, EVERYTHING Bush has done over the past 7.5 years is impeachable.

[pt22]

52. Amazing how posts like that fly 20000 feet over the heads of so many.

:eyes:

[uponit7771]

53. Thom said it right, congress was TOLD about the illegal acts of Bush admin so that gives him cover

[tom_paine]

59. LOL. That's funny. Crude, but funny.

What's not funny is the reality you describe in your "reverse-psychology" way.

No, that's not funny AT ALL.

[Solon]

61. The problem is...this was a bi-partisan "conspiracy" so to speak...

I say conspiracy some what ironically because most of the plans laid out were never a secret in the first place(PNAC). However, Bush would never have committed most of these crimes without Democrats being complicit in those crimes. Claiming "ignorance" by turning your head purposefully and sticking fingers in your ears isn't an excuse that would pass legal muster, so instead the Democrats are going to cover Bush's ass, and their own as well.

Not to mention that the powers Bush has claimed, extra-constitutionally, will be used by future Democratic administrations as well. One last thing, if the impeachment of Bush, or the conviction of him were to happen, then that opens to door for the prosecution of other Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, of war crimes, in the future. There has yet to be a President who ever served in the past 50 years at least, that was innocent of war crimes, wars of aggression, or violating international and federal law.

[deacon]

62. He's a fine upstanding citizen dammit, Mccain said so, :) n/t

[mdmc]

64. With domestic spying kosher,

Bush is even a bit more upstanding.