Bush has committed crimes, the election is over, and yet still there are people against impeachment

[mudesi]

Give me a reason. An actual reason. Your previous "reason" (which was nothing more than an excuse, but that's water under the bridge now) was that it would hurt the Democrats' election chances.

WELL THE ELECTION IS OVER PEOPLE.

Unless you are completely delusional and actually believe that Bush and Cheney did not commit crimes and that there is no proof of those crimes, there is literally, literally no reason to be against it at this point in time.

When a criminal is caught committing a crime, he is prosecuted.

Impeach. Charge. Try. Convict.

Unless one of you cowards can actually give a valid reason? Anyone?

[liberalmuse]

1. Shhhhhhh.

Not until we get our guy sworn in and safely in the White House.

[Romulox]

2. If we do anything to annoy the Republicans, they'll just use it against us in 2012

Can you just keep your damn opinions to yourself until then?

:sarcasm:

[Ghost in the Machine]

3. Impeachnophobes will always remain just that.... impeachnophobes..

I personally think they're shills and/or republican apologists...

but that's just *my* opinion..

[HereSince1628]

4. Well, one reason is we don't want to let them claim double jeopardy

Criminal trials in 2012 will be perfect for our cause.

[Romulox]

5. Impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding, and jeopardy does not attach. nt

[HereSince1628]

15. Ok, fine

[tekisui]

6. I am all for it.

The only risk I see now, is a bunch of pardons for the war criminals, if indictments are handed down.

But, I say let's get going, IMPEACH!

[stray cat]

7. did you notice the state of the economy - people want their lives taken care of 1st

[ixion]

10. hauling BushCo before Congress for daily hearings is a great way

to protect the economy.

[Occam Bandage]

11. No, it is not. It has absolutely nothing to do with the economy whatsoever.

Bush is not some sort of dark force that eminates Recession Rays.

[ixion]

17. no, but they are in the never-ending process of destroying the constitution

and looting the treasury. Hauling them before committee would keep them occupied, and my just enforce the law.

[Occam Bandage]

19. "Spending every day trying to kick this guy out a week or two early will fix this economy" is not

exactly an easy sell to anyone but the most frothy of the impotent far left.

[mudesi]

14. You can't do both?

Let's stop the entire judicial system! The economy is in trouble!

[Occam Bandage]

18. Impeachment does not involve the judicial system,

with the sole exception of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding over the Senate proceedings. It is a political act undertaken by Congress. Congress has actual important things to be doing right now.

[Occam Bandage]

8. There isn't remotely enough time left.

The only punishment for impeachment is removal from office, and Bush is already leaving in a few months anyway.
There still aren't the votes to convict.
It would hurt the transition effort and remain a distraction throughout the first few months of Obama's presidency.
It would make Obama's talk of moving the country forward look laughable.
People would be rightfully outraged that the Democrats are more concerned with getting political revenge on Bush than with fixing the economy.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. I'll take a stab at it

Although I'll say right up front that I believe the entire BFEE cabal should have been impeached, indicted & incarcerated LONG ago.

That obviously didn't happen, and the window of opportunity for impeachment has closed. We know Chimpolini & The Dick of Death are going to be out of office in 70-odd days anyway, so what's to be accomplished by such a futile gesture? It would spur the Chimp to issue blanket pardons like there's no tomorrow, most likely.

I prefer to wait until the transfer of power is complete, then revisit the entire eight-year nightmare and find cause for indictment. There'll be no pardons issued then, by gawd!

[mudesi]

13. Let's pretend I agree that that's a valid reason

I'm willing to bet any sum of money that even after Obama is sworn in and the transfer of power is complete, there would still be people out there and here on DU against holding Bush accountable for his crimes.

[Occam Bandage]

16. For instance, Barack Obama himself.

No President has ever prosecuted his predecessor's administration. Ever. Not one. Never. It will not happen. Bush will not be prosecuted. He will not be impeached. He will not be "held accountable" or "brought to justice." He will retire to his dumbfuck little farm and clear brush for the next few decades, and that will be it. Better start getting used to it.

[tritsofme]

12. Everyone of any consequence has moved on.

Sorry

[snappyturtle]

20. Indictment after the inauguration or impeachment now...something

has to be done. We would be light years better off now had impeachment been pursued in 2006 and that is one reason I want to see Nancy Pelosi replaced. This administration and those who have allowed their crimes to go unanswered are complicit in the evil perpetrated on the planet, e.g. the needless deaths of all those in this uncalled for war in Iraq.

[paparush]

21. If we want Peace, we must pursue JUSTICE!

[Occam Bandage]

22. I agree, in as much as we should pursue social justice through fair economic reforms.

I disagree with your assertion that launching hearings to remove Bush from office several weeks early will somehow lead to "peace."

[sshan2525]

23. It's too late to do anything about it while he's in office

I'd actually prefer to see him brought up on international war crimes charges and let the US congress deal with more pressing matters.