Are Dems & Repugs in cahoots to allow Bush to escape without impeachment?

[Imagevision]

War crimes for openers? Unless Pelosi figures that in time enough repugs will have stopped their support of this war president?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Yes. It's All One Big Giant Rove Conspiracy. Has NOTHING To Do With The Fact That

you ain't got anywhere nears the 67 votes necessary to make impeachment anything but a dog and pony show.

Nahhhhhhhhhhh. Ain't gots nothin to do with that. You're right. It's just all one big conspiracy.

[Imagevision]

3. I agree, we don't have the 67 votes needed today -- however, this has been changing in

the past month. Case in point is Elizabreath Dole saying today she no longer agrees with Bush on surge plan and there are other Repugs facing re-election in 2008!

[lebkuchen]

6. I think it's only a question of, "Who will play Goldwater's role?"

in "Impeachment: Part II"

[onenote]

13. dole's opposition to surge plan is a far cry from supporting impeachment

The day Libby Dole states she is in favor of impeaching chimy will be the day after he resigns, which is another way of saying, don't hold your breath

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

7. OMC, your personal comment from your profile says...

It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all. That is why I'm a liberal.

Why do you go harsh so often on comments by others, just curious.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Sometimes Reality And Blunt Honesty Are Harsh.

And sometimes, in the face of absurdity, a good smack of reality is necessary.

And with all due respect, putting forth a theory that impeachment is not occurring because the Democrats are in some big collusion with the republicans, rather than the glaringly obvious reason that the effort itself would be utterly futile and a complete waste of our agenda's time, most definitely is deserving of some blunt reality.

[galadrium]

2. I'm sure plenty of Dems would like to see Bush impeached

But as a practical matter it isn't worth spending that much political capital to make it happen. There isn't enough public support... or votes in the senate to make it happen.

[lebkuchen]

4. This poll is interesting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/from/ET

With 21 senate repubs up for reelection in 2008, and 12 dems, I think the senate repubs might have become a tad more interested in getting their boy out of the WH, especially since Nov. 2006.

[galadrium]

20. The poll might be interesting... but it doen't mean anything

Voluntary response polls aren't scientific.

[lebkuchen]

21. They're not?

Oh. I thought they were.

[Imagevision]

11. There isn't enough public support? There is enough public support to impeach Bush

[galadrium]

23. No there isn't

Just because Bush's approval numbers are low, doesn't mean there is a movement for impeachment. I haven't seen any data that suggests there is a movement for impeachment.

[Independent_Liberal]

29. Oh really? How do you explain this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/from/ET

[galadrium]

37. I already did.

That poll isn't scientific. Its like a poll on DU, it isn't based on a random survey, so the data isn't reliable. Its a junk poll.

[mmonk]

15. ?

Listen to yourself.

[Greeby]

5. Kucinich has stated the only reason he will not impeach

Is he fears it may make Shrub accelerate his war plans

[lebkuchen]

9. Schrub is accelerating now

[oasis]

8. No. Are all posters who complain about Dem leadership in cahoots with Greens?

:shrug:

[PATRICK]

10. Not yet

The GOP is trying to figure how to get OUT of cahoots with the sinking administration- and it can't. No where does it have even the inkling of values or imagination to take on the dreaded "I" word. yet without the GOP AND the hypocritical(or blindly stupid) MSM even having the people wholly on board is not enough of a starter.

The Democrats can't escape the forced necessity of dealing with the destructive president, lame duck on a rampage, and all the evils he has set up to continue his work with the maximum protection for himself and the maximum hindrance to the nation and its laws. Stop the president by law or impeachment. Or both. They haven't the votes to do it on their own but they have well prepared the clarion call in sweeping GOP support for the 100 hours. That has popular positive momentum. They probably don't want to squander that mandate unwisely, but something has to be done that even parts of Bush dynasty circle can't do.

Stop the war. Cut the tail off the dog. He can keep up his war gambits even under the tortuous moves to impeachment he will impede and forestall. The two can be wedded in making the lies leading to a war of aggression the first cause for a move to impeach. Years late but not too late.

As for letting him escape, that is not the grounds for a deal but a description of the quagmire Bush has moated himself with in all things. The easy path is for the lapdog rubber stamp GOP to rejoin the human race and do their duty. All the things that make impeachment nearly impossible are still their territory.
But they are surrendering domestic issues, the dictatorship and the war, piece by piece.

[mmonk]

12. Impeachment is off the table would indicate so

unless it was a political lie.

[porphyrian]

18. If it's true when they say it, but they change their mind later, is it a lie?

There are a few investigations and trials just getting underway.

[mmonk]

22. They mentioned there would be hearings and oversight but

that impeachment is off the table. Impeachment is off the table means any charges of wrongdoing are off the table (predetermined nothing will be done). Now whether they were just talking about the president as opposed to other officials, I guess that could be up to debate since there is no further clarity.

[porphyrian]

25. Don't you think there are things which can compel them to change their minds?

Such as the "uncovering" of evidence of serious criminal wrongdoing by our most powerful elected officials or an enormous public demand for it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Politics as usual. They system is corrupt.

[madville]

17. In reality

By the time they had a trial and wasted a year(by "wasted" I mean not getting anything else done) it would almost be time for him to leave office anyway. If impeachment was attempted what's to stop Cheney from retiring and Bush selecting McCain to be the VP since the Senate would easily confirm him, then we would have President McCain running for reelection if GWB got the boot. They wouldn't have the votes anyway so it would be a huge waste, might even backfire on us for 2008 somehow.

[mmonk]

19. Keep thinking up things and ways to defend

no protection of your rights.

[Independent_Liberal]

30. Don't let the naysayers and defeatists get to you.

They just keep rationalizing inaction for impeachment every chance they get. I wish they could see that if we don't act to defend our republic, we'll be living in a fascist police state. Obviously they don't care enough about it. If we stay silent, we'll deserve everything we get. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but what else can I say?

[Independent_Liberal]

31. self delete nt

[mzmolly]

24. No, but I do believe that Democrats feel impeachment focuses on only 1 or 2

people, when the entire Republican Party needs to be "impeached."

I would not doubt that impeachment will come, but most likely it will be after we air out the laundry.

[northzax]

26. no.

Bush is increasinly irrelevant, to his party, to big business and to everyone else. Frankly, unless there is some real smoking gun, which hasn't arisen yet, it's not actually worth the interruption of the governing process. the House and Senate have work to do, and impeachment would take the entire year, probably fail, and nothing else would get done.

I know, not satisfying, but really, the best thing is to let him fade into irrelevance. And by smoking gun, I want to see direct, physical evidence of a violation of US law that directly affects the governing of the country. you'd really be hard pressed to find one, I think.

or would you care to give examples? hint: it is INSANELY hard to prosecute someone for war crimes without direct physical evidence of such. negligence is not a war crime under US law for the leadership. Think about it, the Hague Tribunal wasn't able to convict Milosevic of war crimes in 5 years, despite direct evidence that he ordered a genocide. from what I can tell, every violation of US law Bush may have engaged in (and he is not neccesarily legally responsible for the actions of people in his administration unless he knew about it before hand or lied to cover it up afterwards) there are good reasons that impeachment is so difficult, and frankly, it's not neccesary here. Why give him the stage back? tomorrow's SOTU will be the lowest rated in a decade, people frankly don't give a crap about Bush anymore, and that is the best punishment for him.

[Independent_Liberal]

32. Impeachment isn't necessary?

or would you care to give examples? hint: it is INSANELY hard to prosecute someone for war crimes without direct physical evidence of such. negligence is not a war crime under US law for the leadership. Think about it, the Hague Tribunal wasn't able to convict Milosevic of war crimes in 5 years, despite direct evidence that he ordered a genocide. from what I can tell, every violation of US law Bush may have engaged in (and he is not neccesarily legally responsible for the actions of people in his administration unless he knew about it before hand or lied to cover it up afterwards) there are good reasons that impeachment is so difficult, and frankly, it's not neccesary here. Why give him the stage back? tomorrow's SOTU will be the lowest rated in a decade, people frankly don't give a crap about Bush anymore, and that is the best punishment for him.

Once again, more rationalization for inaction. Don't you see the dangers that are facing us and our democracy and constitution? Bush could attack Iran or there could be another terrorist attack.

Daniel Ellsberg even said recently, if we don't even attempt to impeach, we're accepting a man who thinks of himself as dictator. All future presidents will be the same.

[northzax]

33. sure, impeach

for what now? High Crimes and Misdemeanors. provide your charges, backed up by hard evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor committed by Mr. Bush. I've rationalized my inaction, as you say, now you provide charges and evidence that you believe meet the standard for impeachment.

go ahead. tell me what we should stop the business of the country for a year for. tell me what charges. I would posit there is a much greater danger to our democracy and constitution by impeaching someone for pure political motives. Why should Bush be the first president impeached (and I assume convicted, you hope)? not vagaries like 'he's evil' or 'it's a bad precedent' I want charges and details that you believe will hold up in a court of law under US law.

[Independent_Liberal]

34. Cynthia McKinney made a case right here...

http://impeachpac.org/node/2633

[northzax]

36. an interesting document

only a couple of minor details. every single thing he did on this list was aceeded to by Congress. And some of them, frankly, are just a stretch (land mines? the US is not party to the International Convention to Ban Landmines, and the building of them is authorised by Congress through the appropriations process, so how can he be impeached by that same Congress?)

you kind of have to find a violation of a law passed by Congress, or a violation of the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court or at least a solid reading of state decisis, to have this arguement. And I don't see it.

[WI_DEM]

27. impeachement is not going to happen, imo

first you don't just vote on impeachemnt you usually have months of hearings. Then if you get impeachment passed by the house, it goes to the senate for a trial. You need 2/3 of the senate to convict and it just isn't going to happen.

I just don't think it is a high priority of the house and senate. 2008 is a presidential year and the focus soon enough will be on that. It would be nice to be wrong, but I don't think I will be. Don't count on impeachment.

[Independent_Liberal]

28. Crazier things have happened.

Once investigations are done and they uncover all sorts of wrongdoing and criminal activity, the evidence will be what will compel the public and Congress to move for impeachment. It will even force many Repubs in the Senate to go along with it. Keep this in mind, many Republicans in the House and Senate are turning against the surge plan. I don't think it's as crazy as it sounds.

[alittlelark]

35. Subpoenas are raining dowm. One indictment will bring the 'I' word

to the floor. Congress cannot impeach w/o an indictment.

[rpgamerd00d]

38. Impeachment Can Only Come From The People

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x10201

WE Have To Make It Happen. Write a LTTE Today !