Considering that there aren't enough votes to cut off funding for the war...

[Freddie Stubbs]

Who really believes that there are enough votes for impeachment?

[Atman]

1. Oh for christ fucking sake!

How many times does it have to be said? It is not about the votes for impeachment! It is about the investigations and bringing the dirt to light and most important of all...upholding and respecting the Constitution and the rule of law! An impeachment is just an investigation, or a trial of sorts. We don't know where it will go until we undertake it. Maybe when the facts get laid on the table, more and more congressmen will understand as their constituents beat down their doors. If an impeachment doesn't lead to a conviction, so be it. But to not even TRY to uphold the law because the lawbreakers might not go along with it is just completely ludicrous and actually, forgive me, un-American.

.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. ...

:thumbsup:

[bigtree]

5. "We don't know where it will go until we undertake it."

What a sham. All of the problems we face . . . solved by merely initiating impeachment proceedings?

There's no guarantee at all that the process would tie Bush's hands in Iraq. It would, however, completely paralyze Congress and prevent them from enacting any significant legislation. It would almost certainly polarize the body, and possibly the electorate. Many would see the effort as an assault on their vote, not just an attack on Bush.

If we don't know the *likely outcome of such a political prosecution then how can folks guarantee that the results of the inquiry would accomplish ANY of the goals we all say we want to see through?

[Atman]

6. You want a guarantee, buy a Hyundai.

We're talking about the freakin' Constitution, man!

.

[lazer47]

9. That makes as much sense as not prosecuting

a murder case because you don't know what the Jury will do before hand

[Phredicles]

10. And what "significant legislation" has congress passed these days?

The Stockholm Syndrome Democrat apologists tend to gloss over that point, I've noticed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. They have just raised the minimum wage

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Congress can conduct multiple investigations without actually starting the impeachment process

But many here want impeachment for the same reason that Republicans wanted it against Clinton.

[Bitwit1234]

14. Not enough votes is what I thought at first but

after thinking it over I have come around to the same reasoning as you do. We need impeachment process. If just to get all and every single one of the lies, the distortions, the shredding of the constitution this administration has done. This country needs to hear each of these. I used to live in Maryland near DC. We heard every single thing that was happening. Since moving to Minnesota, I have to say the only information I get about these things are from the internet. And guess what. Minnesota is not a red state. So imagine the people who live in the Heartland and the South, they hear nothing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. But Congress already is holding investigations

Goodling is testifying right now.

[LSK]

26. and when Conviction fails in the Senate?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Only

idiots can't count.

Without the votes, it's pointless to move directly to impeachment.

Yes, we need the investigations - I support them wholehartedly. But until something big and obvious arises, impeachment talk is just a temper-tantrum.

[madfloridian]

3. That makes it convenient for us not to have to stand up for what is right.

If there are not enough votes, we just keep our powder dry. We don't even need to try if there are not enough votes.

We don't need to speak up for all those dying in Iraq. We don't have enough votes.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. In other countries they don't worry about votes

In other countries the people take to the streets and take over the government. Here in apathetic beer and pretzel America I don't think people are too motivated to do anything. I was talking to a misinformed neighbor the other day and she said why would we need to impeach the president he hasn't done anything wrong........

[durablend]

29. Makes for a good GOTV campaign, doesn't it

"Well we didn't have the votes, so we decided it was better to just roll over. Sorry about the loss of your son/daughter/huband/wife, but could you PLEEEEEEEEEZ vote for the Democrats?"

[Danieljay]

4. then don't fund the effing war. Let Bush deal with it. I'm sick of these bastards, all of them.

Effing Cowards. I wont vote Republican but I can just not vote for a Democrat either. What does it matter anymore. The Dems have proved they are just like the Republicans. They are all a bunch of spineless twits.

[Ensalada]

8. Some perspective ... Clinton was impeached in 4 months' time

Bill Clinton testified in August 1998, and in December 1998 was impeached mainly on grounds of perjury in his August testimony.

4 months is all it took to impeach him for lying about having sex.

[nini]

22. because the repukes had the votes

.

[WilliamPitt]

25. ...after five years of hearings.

[Beelzebud]

11. Yeah you're right. We should just let Bush have it all.

[Nite Owl]

12. Most of the public

doesn't even know the whole story as many here do, just bits and pieces that they don't like. Impeachment proceedings would focus them, inform them of all the atrocities that have been done to us over the past six years. The votes could very well come from Republican constituencies calling their reps once they see it all laid out.

[shimmergal]

13. Impeachment is TOO GOOD for Bush.

Impeachment is _not_ a criminal trial. What it would say to the world about our willingness to uphold the law is. . . nothing.

Impeachment without conviction by the Senate would say to the world, rather, than his actions while in office were the moral equivalent of Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica, no worse. Is that the message we want to send? I don't think so.

Congress can do lots of investigations regardless. Maybe, just maybe, one of the investigating committees will find the smoking gun that will so inflame the electorate that the people _demand_ Bush/Cheney be thrown out of office. Then, the situation turns around.

Otherwise, what's to prevent some serious legal brains from drawing up an indictment that can be served on the cabal members the moment they leave office? Whatever direction it would go after that, at least their being charged with actual crimes would be on the record then. Which is more than the impeachment process, with its vague "high crimes and misdemeanors" does.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Thank you for your concern

And I'm sure the GOP appreciates your concern.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. No concern, just pointing out some facts

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. That's what I basically said to myself in 2004.

There weren't enough votes to stop the GOP in 2002, so why should there be enough votes to get Bush out of office in 2004? So I didn't vote.

:sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

23. Your sarcasm is spot on.

Fucking weak assed apologists keep on keepin' on. :puke:

[HamdenRice]

18. There ARE enough votes for cutting off funding

All they have to do is not pass anything. The media has it backwards. There are not enough votes to override a veto to pass a bill that bush doesn't want.

But if they really don't want to fund the war, all they have to do is nothing. And they have the votes for that.

That is something bush doesn't seem to understand either.

[BuyingThyme]

19. There has never been a vote to cut off funding for the war.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Every time there is a vote to fund the war, Congressmen have an opportunity to vote against it

so, far the funding to continue the war always passes.

[EFerrari]

28. That's very true. They've missed every opportunity to stop this crime. n/t