Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Visit the Democratic Party
Conyers Caves: Impeachment is "off the Table"!
This is from John Conyers's website blog, dated November 15, 2006:
We need to put aside any thought of anger or payback. Instead we need to focus on identifying and correcting abuses and pass legislation which serves the interests of the American people.
[snip]
Having devoted a considerable amount of time and attention to detailing the many abuses of the Bush Administration, I firmly believe that we have brought these matters to the attention of the American people and the mainstream media, and that their verdict was reflected in the elections on November 7.
[snip]
As many of you also know, I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. Instead, we agree that oversight, accountability and checks and balances – which have been sorely lacking for the last six years – must occur. I have nothing but respect for those who might disagree, but that is where I come out.
That is not a promising start. I thought Conyer's would have a little more moxy and independence than this. It appears that Nancy has already whipped the troops in line and impeachment is a "non-starter."
Conyer's says he has "nothing but respect for those who might disagree" but how do we change "where he comes out" and help him to understand that impeachment is not revenge; its a remedy?
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Did I miss Bush being voted out?
How about Cheney? Did I miss the memo? Where then, is our recourse?
What a worthless pile of crap democratic party leadership is. If I had wanted a government with no oversight, I'd have voted for republicans.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Lottiemaye, what about H. Res. 635??
Apparently, Conyer’s sees impeachment as a payback or revenge and his “Constitution in Crisis” is proof enough for the American people and historiasn that Bush was a “bad” president and that somehow absolves him of abdicating his Constitutional duty to protect and uphold the Constitution.
I was most troubled by this statement from Conyers. I guess that means that this:
Will simply die in committee, along with the 38 co-sponsors of the bill. Conyer’s appears, for the time being, to be just another career politician who is more concerned with his party’s wants than the rule of law, what the Constitution demands and what the American people deserve.
"If being liberal means critical thinking and informed dissent, instead of blind obedience and ignorant nationalism, then I am all for it!"
Oversight is what he's abdicating
We had that with the republicans.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
I think we need to pressure all 38 co-sponsors of HR 635
I think we need to pressure all 38 co-sponsors who signed on to further this bill, once the 110th congress begins.
A massive public demand for answers, using H RES 635 as the flash point, is what is needed.
Bob Fertik and others, are leading the charge, but how do we reach the millions needed to place unmistakable pressure that impeachment investigations are justified and a remedy to undue the immense damage Bush has unwillingly imparted on us all?
Why would Conyers put that bill out there, press so hard to gather co-sponsors and then abandon it? I am mystified.
"If being liberal means critical thinking and informed dissent, instead of blind obedience and ignorant nationalism, then I am all for it!"
Its really very simple Frank...
you just have to think 'spineless.' You have to think 'DLC.'
You have to believe that posturing and 'can't we just get along' are more important than doing the people's business.
And, all this wussiness before we even take control. Errr...before someone takes control.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
the same game
We shouldn't be surprised at the collective DLC decision to take the impeachment resolution off the table and put it underneath ; they just used it, and used Progressives ,to get elected. Now they will push their centrist agenda, which if allowed to go unchallenged will mean nothing changes at the core. A few issues on the periphery will be concentrated on, like minimum wage, etc, which are fine issues, but the Iraq war will continue and so will the corporate and criminal corruption of our government. Getting a Democratic house and senate were critical steps , but getting real leaders who believe in true democracy is the Progressive goal, or should be anyway. And we must be vigilant and only support those who work for that goal. I even saw Howard Dean say on tv after the election when questioned about impeachment "...we're not gonna do that." To me, that was a low blow from someone I had faith in. But that's reality, so forget him then and support someone else who is willing to pick up the torch and carry it ll the way. The main thing is for Progressives not to put the torch down now.
They've got two years
Not the eight Bush has had. Democrats are not ignorant like republican voters are. If, in '08, democratic majority has meant nothing to me, I will not go to the polls. I suspect that LOTS of voters will not go to the polls. If democrats think they can retain majority like republicans can when they SUCK, they've got another thing coming. We don't control the software.
If they want to lose majority, that's fine. I can be just as stubborn as DLC centrists can.
WHAT PART OF 'WE DON'T WANT YOUR NEOCON AGENDA' DO THEY NOT GET?!?
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
How long would it take to
How long would it take to bring impeachment proceedings against the president?
I'm not saying that I don't want the criminals to walk because I do. But I'm thinking that if this were 2 years ago, we would have a better shot at impeachment. We'd have 4 years to do the work that we need to do to clean up the mess that this administration has caused, and still have plenty of time to oust these nuts too.
Now I don't know. Maybe with two years we could do it. I'm not sure on how that works and how much attention that would take away from congress. If in the runup to 2008 we were unable to do alot of the things that the voters want we would look like we wasted their time, money, and votes.
Still, it is the right thing to do to punish a criminal. I'm just not sure what the balance is.But he shouldn't just be allowed to walk either.
Perhaps in face only, they are stating that impeachment is off the table until the facts surface naturally once the Dems take control. Undoubtedly they will when we are in control of the purse-strings. Follow the money and we'll uncover the corruption. We all know about it yet, but the media needs to be forced to cover it. That SHOULD happen once we are in control.
I know that people aren't happy with the DLC, and I'm no big fan either, but that is the nature of the democratic party. We do encompass many different views and standings. It's a good thing and it can be a hinderance. Yet they are still a part of our party.
I don't know if coming out of the gates screaming impeachment is the right approach, unless we want to have every single prez have impeachment proceedings brought forward by the opposition from now on. I believe that they need to be impeached, and I hope that will happen in due time.
How long does it take to end a war?
And here I thought that the neocon agenda was resoundingly defeated at the polls. DLCers are neocons. Their agenda is neocon.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Well Lootie, I'll tell you something...
If our people, DNC/DLC don't develop spines by January, my son and I won't be voting in '08 either. Further, as a flaming and angry liberal, I shall pursue a campaign to get other dems to see the light and stay away as well. No votes for Dems in '08.
They just might have to think about that one for a bit. Could even spoil a 4 martini lunch in Georgetown once in a while.
Spines folks...nature has already provided an access hole for the insertion of spines. We may have to use it.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
We're going to have to be diligent
It's no better to sit on our laurels when we're in majority than when we're in minority. IMHO, one of the reasons the democrats won't impeach Bush is because our neocon faction is just as culpable.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
The answer to that question
The answer to that question is always.... Too long.
I don't care for the DLC. I'm not sure that I would go so far as to call them neocons. Conservative and pander to the middle if not at times the right, but they are a part of our party that we will have to work with for the immediate future if we are going to get anything accomplished. They have after all been voted in. So they do have constituients that support them.
It's just a matter of keeping the party focused and that job is on you and I.
I said it the day after the election, that now the hard work starts. Not just for our elected senators and representatives, but for each democrat to be vocal and stay after our elected officials to make sure that our party stays on course. To that, I will bring this thread full circle and ask;
Is impeachment what SHOULD be on the frontburner for our elected officials? I don't know. There is alot of work that needs to be done. IF we can get that done and impeach then I think it should happen. But I think the more important issues are restoring our rights, raising min wage, healthcare, getting us out of Iraq, stengthening our security here at home, and a host of other issues.
We need to make a serious dent in these issues not just before 2008, but before the run to 2008 when people are going to be critiquing what we have done. If we want to regain the presidency in 2008 we need to get some work done.
Impeaching the president is not equivelent to doing all the work. Impeaching the prez is not going to get our work done, if we can do that AND get the work done then let's do it.
Sorry Moda, but the DLC is not a part of *our* party...
The DNC is. What a difference one letter makes.
They are indeed neocons if not outright nazis.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Yeah I understand that. I
Yeah I understand that. I get that. But they are democrats (kind of?) notheless, and to the general public that is what they understand. That isn't meant to sound elitist. It's just that a great number of people in this country understand politics as one team Vs. another team. As I said we do have to work with them now. Does it make sense to infight with elected democrats (in name only) over an issue that we aren't going to agree on and damage the efforts of fixing other issues?
We can't impeach everyone. At what point do we stop having conservatives to worry about? If the DLC was removed from our party, would there be another group of folks that aren't liberal enough? I see people complain about Lieberman, yet at the same time are happy that he won because he will caucus with us. That is confusing to most people.
Another example would be how we praise Bill Clinton yet we rip his wife. Is she that much different than her husband? I don't know but it is confusing.
To me since these people are elected it makes more sense to work to try and keep them under wraps than it does to butt heads with them and appear as though the party is spinning it's wheels in its own mud.
I hope that this conversation can stay positive and that my point is not lost in that we need to be able to have our liberties restored and protect our country.
Hillary?
She's a republican. Always was. I have no love for her...
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Right ok. Yeah she's no
Right ok. Yeah she's no good. But why, if we tout bill next to the second coming do we rip her? That's the question that the general voter doesn't understand, yet they will understand that there is political discord within our party if we butt heads on issues that we will not agree on. THAT is the pitfall that we need to avoid, at the same time doing the most we can to repair this country.
Because she's a republican.
That's pretty simple. President of her Young Republican group in college, IIRC.
REPUBLICAN.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Wow I had never heard that
Wow I had never heard that before. Is there a link for that info?
That's really interesting..
Although Norm Coleman here in MN used to stump for Paul Wellstone. GO figure that. I can't stand Norm Coleman. He's just slimy. Sorry to go off topic.
Like I said. Republican.
G O P
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Impeach the DLC first
We can't do that, so we have to settle for fighting for a resolution to a problem for which there is a remedy. The neocons in our party are no better than Bush. If they could be impeached, I'd rather start with them...but I have to be realistic.
Our 'work,' is oversight.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
So CAN we do that? The
So CAN we do that? The question is, CAN we impeach him/them knowing that there is going to be opposition. (see note below) that would make it difficult and problematic while trying to agree on the basic injustices that need to be righted as well? It would be tough. We basicly need to have made headway on the issues AND be well on the path to impeachment by the third quarter of 2007 in order for our party to appear to be doing the will of the public. If we can't do that, then we aren't going to be a very electable party for 2008.
Note: I'm not even sure all of these DLCers are agains impeachment. I think they say this because they are career politicians and want to let someone else run with the ball so that they aren't on the hook for it. Just my hunch. I can't rightly call Hilary a neocon or a nazi as it was put earlier. That to me is just leaves a bad taste.
I hate to be the one
I hate to be the one to inform you that " not going to the polls" is a mountain of stupid attitude.
YYYEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH !!!!!
A fool voting for a fool
How smart is that?
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Apathy. Always an effective
Apathy. Always an effective tool.
Not apathy. Common sense.
Voting against my best interests has never been my bag. I'm not going to help the opposition do that.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
Surely if you looked hard
Surely if you looked hard enough you should be able to find a candidate that is aligned with your views enough to cast a vote. Even if it is a write in or as some alternative party.
I just would hate to think of abstaining from voting because I didn't like the choice my registered party ran. That to me seems like dereliction of civic duty.
But it is your right to not vote.
Indeed. It is my right
not to vote for a neocon agenda that kills kids.
Conservative. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author, Editor, Journalist.
To withhold one's vote might be the only bloodless way...
to remind some of our mindless/spineless leadership that their three P's--Power, Perks, and Paycheck come from all of us--The People.
As a last ditch effort, a movement to fire them all at the same time just might get their attention.
Over the past 6 years, most of them have paid no attention to our phone calls, emails, letters, telegrams, and personal office visits.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Lootie, Can I change the
Lootie,
Can I change the way you said this so folks understand what you mean?
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but Lootie IS voting by not voting.
She is making it crystal clear she is a motivated VOTER who is ready to climb a mountain to VOTE.
She is in the launch tube.
Now all a politician has to do is be a real Democrat and BANG they get her vote.
------------------------------
The Greens try to do the same thing BUT end up dividing us further.
We Democrats will vote for real Democrats. Regardless, we will give our time, money, and good press to real Democrats. Elections are only a part of being a Democrat. Readying the electorate to force politicians to be real Democrats is the other part.
Jim
"Apathy" is defined as:
APATHY -- "Apathy is the lack of emotion, motivation, or enthusiasm. Apathy is a psychological term for a state of indifference — where an individual is irresponsive or "indifferent" to aspects of emotional, social, or physical life."
Apathy is NOT an effective tool. That is ignorance at its finest.
Consider this:
"Silence is merely a prologue to complicity and complicity without resistance leads to oppression, for when you have chosen not to decide, your choice is still cast....a choice for someone else to decide your fate."
"If being liberal means critical thinking and informed dissent, instead of blind obedience and ignorant nationalism, then I am all for it!"
New Thread - Same Topic
The thread below (or above if you don't have comments set to "newest first") is fast approaching the right-edge "skinny" point-of-diminshing-returns.
Position One: Force action through widespread demonstrations, work stoppages, and other high-visibility actions. (My take: There are not enough body bags coming back from Iraq, as with Vietnam, to spur this kind of emotional response from the general public.)
Position Two: Allow Congressional hearings to follow their natural course, and make the decision to impeach (indict) after all of the evidence is in. (My take: This is the way that a District Attorney's office would handle it, but the question has become -- are the "investigators" on the take?)
Position Three: Gather millions of signatures on petitions to Congress in favor of impeachment. (My take: this approach would be best served by demanding that Congressional hearings take place -- quickly -- followed by impeachment if warranted.)
Position Four: Forgive and forget any impeachable offenses, because the average American Citizen wants an end to "divisive politics," and it would cost too much. (My take: This is an absurd position because it flies in the face of the American Justice system.)
Go for it...
Holy crap batman I just
Holy crap batman I just started a "numbered list" above ;)
Great minds think alike?
Birds of a feather?
Sheeple?
Copycat?
Consensus?
I know which I'll pick!!!
-------
Okay now I'm going to actually take the time to digest YOUR list!
Nice list but you missed
Nice list but you missed Position Five: Time for rest. Sci Fi Friday.
Note to self: Fix World Saturday.
Good start Bill. Thanks.
I also forgot the missionary
I also forgot the missionary position...
Okay Bill, I'll play.....here's my assessments.
My assessment: you are sadly correct. Vietnam was different because of the draft. No matter how you slice it, those in the military are there of their own freewill. (We can argue all the circular points later of "that's not what they signed up for”) but most people and most parents have the one thing that drives the lack of motivation to take to the streets: CHOICE. Now, would the implementation of the draft change the public outcry? If so, should we be calling FOR a draft to push this our way? Too radical and dangerous?
My assessment: This should be the natural, organic outgrowth of all the misdeeds and criminal activity by the Bush administration. However, one becomes VERY suspect when the actual man who brought us H Res. 635 -- Conyers -- when given the proverbial "gun" to pull the trigger on impeachment hearings, puts it back in the holster after its now been loaded, bears a second look and many sobering questions come to mind.
My assessment:: This sound good -- in theory -- but its level of success is suspect. When Conyer's brought the Whitehouse a petition with 560,000 names on it, Bush's response was, "I see no need to address it." Can you give me a precedent that shows this method has legs?
My assessment: This position is indeed ludicrous and comical. Following that no sequitur logic, we should just let all the murderers and rapist out of prison. Hell, just throw away the judicial system and have pure anarchy and lawlessness. In my view, this is not “divisive politics,” nor a culture of discord, but should be a natural recourse in the countenance of such aversion and subversion of the supreme law of our land by the very person entrusted to uphold the law the most!
------
So where does this leave us? In my view, no real good options are on the table currently. What's on the table is "tasty snacks" -- like raising the minimum wage and such -- that everyone can enjoy, while the meat and potatoes issues -- Iraq and impeachment -- are left cold and untouched, still seating in the 'frig.
Fire away....
"If being liberal means critical thinking and informed dissent, instead of blind obedience and ignorant nationalism, then I am all for it!"
Importance, urgency, goals, and strategies.
SnoweyMom raised an interesting issue: How can the Democrats best squander Congressional victory? Impeachment? No, wait, I've got it! Appeasement invites disaster most effectively.
Bush's hypocrisy and treachery is continuing unabated since his drubbing in the elections. Global warming - scorch! Kyoto - forget it! Religious freedom - it's for the Vietnamese! Relief for the poor - dream on! Genocide in Darfur and Iraq - good luck!
Given this evidence, it is obvious that undoing 12 years of neocon mischief has to begin with undoing the mischief makers themselves. This first goal may not be the most important, but it is the most urgent because it is prerequisite to the others. Impeachment isn't the only way to undo the neocon mischief makers, but it may well be the most effective.
Ironically, as grinch's two cents worth so aptly explains, most of the bad taste regarding impeachment actually comes directly from its misuse by the neocons themselves. Their strategists are so incredibly brilliant!
We have good goals, but we - even snoweyMom and Speaker Pelosi - need all the help we can get when it comes to strategy. I like Ranelli's assessments of Harding's positions. And I agree that Position 2 makes a lot of sense.
Jim Williams
Goals and strategies
1) I am not convinced that the election was a drubbing for Bush - The Dems barely take the Senate and that is only with the aid of newly re-elected, Holy, pro-war, Kiss-Bush Senator Joe Lieberman. Sen. Russ Feingold probably sensed that Lieberman's win was not a good omen for his campaign and has dropped out of the presidential sweepstakes.
2) The war in Iraq is the most pressing issue - morally and the impact on people's daily lives. This has to be dealt with first - and the lame duck Congress is already dealing with it.
www.thesoapboxroadshow.com
Impeachment....
How can we worry about corruption in the repubs, if Nancy allows Hastings to take a leadership role?
He was impeached by the democrats for taking a bribe of $150,000. Even Rep, Conyers said that it was not racial. He was tried, and found guilty.
I promised myself and others that, if we took back the congress, I would hold my party's feet to the fire and expect, even more, from them.
We cannot overturn his election, but we should not reward him with a chair, either.
I got nervous when she backed Murtha, but he, at least was not convicted. I was glad when she pulled Jefferson, of freezer fame, from his committee. He has not been indicted, let alone, convicted. He is accused of $90,000 bribery, $60,000 less than Hastings.
It gives the dems a really bad start. Makes us look as bad as the repubs.
I think that this would really reflect badly on the Black Caucas too, as they are pushing for him to be chair of the intel committee. I am not black, but I have been so proud of the role African Americans have been playing in politics, today. Conyers, Steele (repub), Obama, Ford, congresswoman Lee, and so many others. I cannot see why, Hastings, or the Black Caucus, would want to push for this chair. There are so many others, without his baggage, that would be a great role model and not cause these kind of problems.
Just as I have said, I would be harder on my own party, because I expect better of them, if I were black, I would want a better representative.
As it is, I, as a dem, want a better representative of dems.
This would make me ashamed of my party. That goes for Jefferson, and anyone else that have been caught 'red-handed'. If Reid is indicted, he has to go, too. The whole nation is watching to see if the dems will keep their promise on ethics. I, for one, will try to see that they do.
Please tell me what you think?
Impeachment is DOA in Senate
The Democrats don't have the 2/3rds majority to convict Bush or Cheney in the Senate.
What about a try at censure - that might have a chance of passing...
BTW - we would have to simultaneously impeach Bush and Cheney for any real change in this administration correct?? This is even a less likely prospect..
Back to Impeachment: Reason to Use When Pressuring For it
An investigation that could lead to impeachment is necessary in order to undo the Constitutional precedents GW is setting for an Imperial Presidency with unchecked power.
Since he uses signing statements to undo whatever he doesn't like of Congress's handiwork, only impeachment proceedings will undo his aggrandizement of power.
It isn't about getting back; it's about stopping the President, and all future Presidents, from becoming a Dictator.
Douglas C. Smyth
Impeachment back to ... etc.
Fine in theory but:
1) Will the Senate go for conviction?
2) Will the American people go for removing Bush and Cheney?
3 Who will succeed Bush and Cheney?
The Constitution states
The Constitution states rather plainly that, in the event both the president and the vice-president are impeached, the Speaker of the House is next in line.
That would be Nancy Pelosi...
Pelosi as president
This would then be the first time in history a president and a vice-president have been impeached and the speaker of the House has assumed the presidency and would then pick a vice president???
The point that everyone,
The point that everyone, including Pelosi and Conyers, seems to be missing, is that the Constitution does not give Congress a choice in the matter. It does not say, "Congress may impeach...," it states that "Congress shall impeach...for high crimes and misdemeanors."
What these DLC-threatened public servants are really saying is that they don't have enough hard evidence to introduce Articles of Impeachment. If they do not vigorously pursue investigations into the "alleged" criminal activities of the BA, then they are committing "high crimes and misdemeanors" by acting as co-conspiritors.
The sequence of events leading up to an indictment (or impeachment) is always the same: An accusation of a crime is registered, and the prosecutor (House Committee or Special Prosecutor) then determines if a crime actually has been committed by obtaining further evidence to either support, or throw out the accusation. If enough evidence is found to support the accusation, it is then presented to a Grand Jury (in this case the House) for the purposes of either issuing an indictment, or determining that the evidence is not sufficient to indict.
The "accused" in the BA are banking on the fact that any attempt to thoroughly investigate their activites will be seen as payback for the Clinton fiasco. The fact-of-the-matter is, that if they are truly "innocent" of these charges, they should be anxious to have their names and reputations cleared. The "neos" in both political Parties, however, are clearly afraid that turning over too many rocks will expose much more than the crimes we are already highly suspicious about.
So, the real issue is whether, or not, the new Majority Party will perform their sworn duty, and investigate the People's charge that crimes have been committed against the Constitution, a Sovereign Nation (Iraq), and the People of the United States of America. If they do not investigate, we are back to square one and Democratic control of Congress is a sham.
Middle American voters have issued an overwhelming mandate for a change. If newly elected Democrats ignore that message, they will be replaced.
This is great in an ideal world
There are several problems:
There are only two years left of the BA; the Senate will not convict no matter what the House does - this is a given, no?; are both Cheney and Bush to be impeached simultaneously?; who then would succeed; the election was not a slam dunk, we only picked up 30 seats or so in the House and barely have control of the Senate, and I don't think many Dems elected were promising impeachment (this is partly the Democrats fault for not pushing their agenda against Bush harder and earlier).
I believe that Feingold (and Kerry?) already called for censure of Bush in the Senate - that went nowhere.
And I am troubled that only Libby in the Bush administration, has been charged with an actually crime by the Special Prosecutor. And this crime is only perjury during testimony under oath.
The best argument to me for beginning impeachment is as threat that the Democrats can use if Bush continues to do stupid/illegal things
Impeachment will not, and
Impeachment will not, and can not, happen unless Congress exercises its Contstitutionally-mandated obligation to provide oversight of the Executive Branch.
Democrats can do both: struggle to reverse the damage done by 12 years of Republican dictatorship, AND investigate their malfeasance during that period. The two initiatives go hand-in-hand, and the former will never be "fixed" unless we determine how we allowed it to happen.
It is not a matter of doing "what is convenient," -- it is a matter of preserving the Constitution and the system of checks and balances it sets forth. The Republicans ignored those responsibilities for 12 years, which is why Middle American voters replaced them.
Whether impeachment proceedings are started, or not, makes no difference. The investigations, however, must go forth to determine if impeachment is required under the Constitution, and to gather evidence for any possible future criminal proceedings.
IMPEACHMENT-NO
THIS ELECTION WAS ABOUT CHANGE BY APPROPRIATE MEANS AND NOT POLITICAL GAMES. THIS ELECTION WAS ABOUT DOING THE BUSINESS OF THE NATION AND THAT WOULD BE RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE, BRINGING OUR TROOPS HOME, GETTING RID OF CORRUPTION IN OUR GOVERNMENT, HAVING AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL AMERICANS, CUTTING BACK ON TAX CUTS TO THE WEALTHY AND LEVELING THE PLAYING FOR ALL AMERICANS. WE ALL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT BUSH AND CHENEY ARE AND THEIR ABERRANT BEHAVIOR WILL NOT GO UNPUNISHED, BUT NOT NOW AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.
You know, as I read and reread this thread, I wonder what...
is really going on in the minds of many of our members while they post.
Chamberlain attempted appeasement. It didn't work then and it won't work now. So, why do so many people think it will work?
Our Constitution makes it quite clear. Impeachment, under current political/legal conditions, is not something we can think about but is mandated in cases of tyranny, high crimes and misdemeanors. Bush-Cheney and their Stepford followers qualify for impeachment.
All it takes is documented evidence, following each step in the legal requirements, making the issues public at each step, and then proceeding to impeach and remove both from office.
Anything else is a futile exercise.
Our party takes control on January 3rd, 2007. Until then, all we can do is make circular arguments.
After that date however, our leadership will either do what is proper under the circumstances...or we the people will either force them to do what is right...or force them to resign. It is time our own highly-paid so-called Princes of the establishment earn the money they have been taking all these years.
Doesn't matter what Pelosi, Conyers, Hoyer, or the rest of that bunch says.
The Constitution speaks for us. Impeachment is definitely on the table.
Bush/Cheney have met the criteria for Impeachment. There is no doubt at all that they do. So why all the hand-wringing?
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Louis Pasteur
Caps key stuck...? Shouting
Caps key stuck...? Shouting does not make your point any more clear than being civil.
That is, if you have a point...
Your nuturing of weakness WILL work.
Dems will NEVER be strong on Economic matters unless we demand them to be STRONG in general.