Remember, the GOP Set the Bar for Impeachment VERY Low

[mopaul]

remember it was they who impeached on the basis of a mere triviality having NOTHING to do with high crimes and treason and genocide.

they have opened the door for us, and here we stand, staring at the open door.

[maveric]

1. Sexual escapades are more serious than mudering innocent Iraqis

and US servicemen/women, lying about the reasons for invading an innocent nation,stealing their resources and shredding the Constitution.
Dontcha know?

[mopaul]

3. according to the republicans, who cherish virtue and family values

war is acceptable, even based on lies, but sex is obscene.

maybe we can avenge clinton's impeachment yet.

[DemoTex]

11. I don't look at it as avenging Clinton's impeachment.

I look at it as getting a murdering, treasonous bastard and his cabal out of power and into the slammer. Clinton's peccadilloes look like kindergarten stuff next to the high crimes of the Bu$h regime.

[NewJeffCT]

34. Henry Hyde already admitted that Clinton was revenge for Nixon

But, subverting the Constitution, using the CIA, creating shadow governments & all that pales in comparison to a blowjob.

[DemoTex]

35. Indeed. And Henry Hyde is no light-house of morality!

What a bunch of dildos! Literally .. their brains are in their pants (and they accused Clinton!). What a bunch of dumb-dicks.

[mopaul]

43. "catch the falling flag"...henry 'youthful indiscretion' hyde.

but it's true, this ain't about revenge, it's about duty.

[NewJeffCT]

58. my saying about Republicans...

If it happened before today, they could write it off as a "youthful indiscretion"...

[calimary]

69. Do not say this about the GOP: that because they "own all," IMPEACHMENT

cannot happen...

PLEASE CONSIDER:

WP: Little Opposition From Party of 'Obstruction' – 6 18 05
Okay, guys, at the risk of sounding like a truly obnoxious nag...
PLEASE consider the following passage from this article:

"The truth is, while Democrats are now offering more vocal opposition to the president than they were in most of Bush's first term, their success in foiling Bush's second-term agenda has come only because Republicans have joined them."

For all those who fear something as ambitious as IMPEACHMENT is impossible because the GOP owns everything... please read that passage again.

It CAN happen. It HAS happened (this same dynamic is what brought Nixon down - it happened when the Republicans finally convinced one of their own that his survival was not possible). It is happening NOW (on the myriad issues listed in this article, for example). AND IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN.
Little Opposition From Party of 'Obstruction'

By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, June 20, 2005; 12:01 AM

-snip-
The president is suffering a case of the political blues right now. His agenda on major items such as Social Security, the energy bill, CAFTA (a proposed trade agreement with Central America) and John Bolton's nomination appears to be going nowhere fast. His plan to pack the courts with conservatives was compromised by members of his own party. And his handling of the war in Iraq is increasingly under attack.

-snip-
The truth is, while Democrats are now offering more vocal opposition to the president than they were in most of Bush's first term, their success in foiling Bush's second-term agenda has come only because Republicans have joined them.

"President Bush's status as a political lame duck is becoming clearer every day," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean in a statement on Thursday in response to a Washington Post story about opposition to the president's Social Security plan among Republicans. "His scheme for Social Security is not only being rejected by voters, but also by congressional Republicans worried about paying a political price at the ballot box in 2006."

-snip-
Second terms are always difficult. Bush will never run for president again; and even if it's early in his second term, the party is already anticipating a future without him. Compounding that historical difficulty are Bush's tumbling approval ratings. Bush's approval rating is far lower than any other second-term president at this stage in his term. While Bush remains popular with conservatives, his support among moderates and independents has tumbled. That means many members of Congress who represent either moderate districts or states have little to fear by straying off the partisan plantation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
From DU thread:
WP: Little Opposition From Party of 'Obstruction'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1559688&mesg_id=1559688

[Karenina]

20. Hmmmm....

[converted_democrat]

2. Yep, the door is wide open, let's help W out the door!

[atreides1]

4. We All Remember

And what you say about the door being opened is very true, the downside is that they control the doormen, we don't.

While some of the Repugs in the House are not doing what Bush wants, they will not impeach him, they like having all that power in their
hands.

The only way to get into that door would be to remove the current management, and that's got to be up to the people.

[mopaul]

5. removing them all, that's a large task

[Dr Fate]

8. Sure- but lets make them say why he should not be impeached...

...they can't do it w/o looking like hypocrites and liars.

[driver8]

37. Very good point, Dr. Fate!

Let them tell us why Shrub should remain in office after the lies he has told. Why are his lies ok, but Clinton's were not? Is a rethuglican excused from telling the truth?

My only fear is, the short memory of the American people.

"Hell...GW is keepin' 'Merka safe from them there terra-ists. It's ok to lie when you're protectin' the country. Fight 'em there so we don't have ta fight 'em here!"

Heil!! Heil!!

[Dr Fate]

6. Talking Point: "Lying is STILL impeachable, right?"

Expected GOP response:
"The difference is Clinton lied under oath."

DEM counter responses:

1) So Republicans believe that lying is OK, so long as that person happens to not be under oath?

2) OK- so why wont the GOP congress place Bush under oath, clear this matter up and let the chips fall where they may? If Bush is being 100% honest, there should be nothing to worry about-right?"

[mopaul]

9. the perjury trap

oath schmoath is what i say. that stupid mind trick don't work on me.

[Dr Fate]

13. "Lying is lying. A lie is a lie, under oath or not." n/t

n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. There are enough lies in the 2003 State of the Union

that warrant demanding Bu$h's resignation and a full investigation into the crimes committed by this misadministration.

Transcript of State of the Union
Part 8: Iraq

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 Posted: 12:03 AM EST (0503 GMT)


Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

more lies....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.8/index.html

[manic expression]

64. I just noticed...

He doesn't consider Iraq the "civilized world". That is really something, in that it exposes his contempt for other cultures, as well as his utter ignorance when it comes to history (only the first traces of civilization came from Sumeria in Iraq! The most advanced place on Earth during the Middle Ages was...Baghdad). How is this man holding public office? How is this man not on trial for crimes?

edited: spelling error

[driver8]

38. Regarding testifying :"under oath"

This motherfucker wouldn't even testify under oath before the 9-11 commission!! Was it because he didn't want to get caught lying under oath?? Of course it was...

By the way, we have to put the person speaking into little georgie's earpiece under oath, too. After all, georgie is only repeating what he is being told to say.

[mopaul]

65. & he had to have president cheney by his side too

fucking awesome, the scale of depravity and apathy

[ladjf]

7. The only way the Republicans in Congress would impeach

Bush is if his ratings got so low that the politicians feared for their own political future. That's not likely to happen. There is no doubt that Bush and his company deserve life sentences for their crimes of treason. Too bad it will never happen.

[Dr Fate]

10. But we can make them say why he should not be impeached...

...and they cant do it without looking like hypocrites & liars.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. That's really a red herring

No, Clinton should not have been impeached for getting a blow job or lying about it. (Actually, he wasn't; he was impeached for being a Democrat.) The bar is higher than that, regardless of what Tom DeLay or James Sensenbrenner think.

We are proposing impeaching Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity. That should be way above any bar. If you can't impeach a president (or, as the case may be, a fraud who claims to be president) for provoking an unjustified war of aggression and lying about it and for denying the rights of prisoners of war and torturing them, for what can you impeach him?

By the way, let's remember that it isn't just Bush to be impeached. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Gonzales were part of this scheme to circumvent the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture. They, too, warrant impeachment and removal from office.

Also, let's not forget that this involved many other high level Bush appointees who should stand trial either in federal court charged under the War Crimes Act of 1996 or, if the federal government won't prosecute, before an international tribunal.

[Dr Fate]

15. GOP impeachment mantra was: "...It's about the lies."

Remember? "It's not about the sex, it's about the lies."

War crimes? Sure. But the bar has been lowered- all we need is one little old lie. We have literally hundreds.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Yes, I remember

It was steer manure. They impeached Clinton because they could.

Right now, I don't think we could get these people impeached, let alone removed. But we should.

ON EDIT

I wouldn't want to compare impeaching Bush, Cheney and three cabinet officers for war crimes to the impeachment of Clinton on charges arising out of a tacky tryst because that would either validate the impeachment of Clinton or trivialize the gravity of the charges being made against Bush and company.

[oscar111]

19. what about leaving the homeless exposed to the elements where they die 3X

the normal rate.

that's 1OO OOO /yr.

From heat, cold, rat bites and hunger.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Here's The Bar...

8 Votes in the House Judiciary Committee
320 Votes on the House Floor
60 Votes in The Senate

Those are the numbers. Get those and we hold the impeachment party...I'll buy.

[Dr Fate]

16. the idea is to make Republicans explain why Bush should not be impeached..

...we dont have to actaully DO it- but we sure can use the "I" word to expose hypocrisy and lies.

"Mr. Hassert, can you please explain to me why lying is no longer an impeachable offense????"

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Dissenting

We have to do it. We have to impeach and remove Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Gonzales and then try them and many others under the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Is it an exaggeration to say that we the most serious and wide ranging charges of wrongdoing against a single nation's leadership that have been made in sixty years?

[Dr Fate]

23. Fine by me. I'm just suggesting the bare minimum!!!

At bare minimum, we can use it to make Repubs who supported Clinton's impeachment look bad in time for '06 & '08.

[KharmaTrain]

26. You Lose Me On This...

I look back on how angry people got during the Clinton Inquisition and think putting this country down that path again would hurt Democrats rather than help.

Focus groups show that Democrats need to speak to what they can do as opposed to what the other guys. Kerry attempted to run against Bunnypants rather than for himself and this made him look cold, distant and pandering...instead of forcing them to explain themselves and actions.

The value of the DSM minutes and memos is to keep a constant light on the lies and deceptions of this regime...along with others...that can be tied by 535 Deomcratic Congressmen and 33 Democratic Senators in next years elections.

Throwing red-meat words like "impeachment" around sounds like retribution rather than justice. Making Bunnypants a lame duck ASAP is also a priority and this is best done by keeping them on the defensive on their own issues (immigration, stem cells) rather than giving them something from ourside to divert to.

Instead of asking Mr. Hastert to explain what an impeachable offense is...I'd rather explain to Mr. & Mrs. Smith in Aurora, Illinois why they need to get a new Representative.

[Dr Fate]

27. That is the idea- we can use it to win elections.

All I'm saying is that we may not have the numbers to impeach- but that does not mean we cant discuss "impeachable offenses" come 2006!!

[KharmaTrain]

33. A Matter Of Semantics

I find throwing words like Impeachement harsh...when other words can do the same thing and be far more effective.

This is where we ask questions and let the voters come up with the answers. Instead of saying this regime lied about this war...and not only do we have proof, but these are impeachable, just put the simple question out there "how did we end up in this situation?". When people ask, then we show them the answers...throwing it in their faces uses the same ham-handed tactic Repugnicans use that these people want to escape from.

Personally, Impeachment would be too good for this kleptocracy, my tastes are more toward a tribunal in the Hague.

Cheers...

[Jack Rabbit]

36. A thought on that, if I may

It would be preferable to try and convict Bush and the neocons in federal court under the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Under the Treaty of Rome, the International Criminal Court does not become involved unless and until the suspect's nation demonstrates that it is unwilling or unable of dispense justice.

One way to determine that in this case would be if Congress were to fail to impeach Bush and Cheney. Another thing to bear in mind is that there will probably be no prosecutions for violations of the War Crimes Act as long as Alberto Gonzales, the author of the torture memos, is the Attorney General. As the author of the torture memos, he is himself a suspect.

The United States is not a member of the Treaty of Rome. The neocons are under the illusion that in this way they are immune for prosecution. This is not true; the Rome Statute provides ways to bring suspects from a non-member state (the USA) who committed crimes in another non-member state (Iraq) before the court. Nevertheless, it might be less messy to convene a special tribunal for the purpose.

Another advantage of a special tribunal is that the Bushies are in effect to be prosecuted for the crime of aggression. This has not been defined by the Rome Statute (see Article 5, paragraph 2). A special tribunal might put some gloss on just exactly what is meant by the crime of aggression.

[mopaul]

42. no no JR, there's just NO way to impeach the man

i guess the founding fathers never figured on the brainiacs of the future circumventing the laws they wrote down.

let's just give it up and go home. ( still in sarcasm mode )

[KharmaTrain]

51. Your Thoughts Are Appreciated

Some interesting information you've presented...and sounds like we're at different sides going for the same result.

Just a comment on the Rome statue...that clause about a nation unwilling or unable to dispense justice could be a double-edged sword. As you point out, as Gonzalez will not pursue any real war crimes cases...such as the prison abuses...doesn't this open the door to international inquiry?

No doubt a special tribunal would be required for what's occured here. Just the fact that its now been proven that this was an invasion...the violation of a sovereign nation...that wasn't warranted, and now there's proof that whatever "justifications" were falsified. According to my feeble legal mind, wouldn't the same statutes used against a Milosevich or a Hussein (he's still under indictment there IIRC) be used against the BFEE?

Let's just hope there is a day when all of these death merchants are made to be held accountable for just a fraction of their avarice and total disrespect for humanity.

Cheers

[Jack Rabbit]

53. The Rome Statute took effect in April 2002

The ICC has no retroactive jurisdiction. If they found Adolf Hitler alive somewhere today, they'd have to find another way to put him on trial. The ICC would not have jurisdiction.

That's why a special tribunal was convened to try war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, before which Milosevic stands accused, and another to try the genocide in Rwanda.

Saddam's worst crimes were committed long before 2002. After the attempt on former President Bush's life in 1993, he was actually on his best behavior, which isn't saying much. Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch looked into the matter of justifying the invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, like Kosovo, and concluded that there was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq in the spring of 2003 that justified military action. One might argue that at other points during Saddam's reign one might have been justified, for example, when Saddam gassed Halabja in 1988 and when he slaughtered Shia after the 1991 War. Before somebody else points it out, the US winked and nodded on both occasions.

Saddam will be tried in what is theoretically an Iraqi court. Personally, I'd rather see Iraq regain its full sovereignty before putting Saddam on trial. That way we could be certain that he is getting Iraqi justice and not neoconservative justice disguised as Iraqi justice. As a purely practical matter, it would make little difference in the end. There more than enough to convict Saddam of thousands of murders.

As for Gonzales not prosecuting war crimes, you're right. He should be impeached, removed from office and his successor should prosecute.

[KharmaTrain]

56. Saddam's Trial Is Gonna Be A Circus

If this regime was serious about making Hussein "pay" for his crimes...not only in 1988, but from they day the Baathists came to power in 1968, I would think the Hague would be the ideal place to both put him on trial, and to create a bit of legitimacy.

Any trial held without international observers and by a U.S. controlled kangeroo court could backfire...putting our troops in greater peril as Saddam becomes a symbol of the resistance...if he isn't already. Also this type of trial will be lambasted across the Arab world and be yet another PR nightmare for the US.

Everyone knows Saddam was evil, bad and so on...so why not put him on trial in a setting similar to a Milosevic? Then Gonzalez can show all the "rape rooms" and "mass graves" and other things we've been told they've found and it's tranparent and open for all to see. It would shine a positive light on the U.S. sense of justice just like the Nurmeburg trials did after WWII.

As far as the Bush family...yes, a special investigation and tribunal would be required...but then look at all the things they've done. We can start with the intimidation of UN diplomats to the kicking out the weapons inspectors to the looting of the country and so on. I'm sure there has to be statues violated by the contractors as well.

IIRC, The US withdrew from some of these protocols and has resisted joining these organizations...but that shouldn't prevent the international community from acting.

[Jack Rabbit]

59. As of now, I agree that Saddam should be tried in The Hague

I'd be a lot more confident that the rights of the accused will be protected there. I'm not worried about that being used to allow him to slip away. I wouldn't have any confidence in a nominally Iraqi court that is actually run by US neocons.

On the other hand, most of Saddam's crimes are that of an Iraqi dictator brutalizing his own people. That belongs in an Iraqi court. When Iraq can start building its own institutions, as opposed to neocon institutions given the Orwellian adjective Iraqi, putting Saddam and other members of his regime on trial for those crimes ought to be a priority.

The crimes that we accuse Bush and the neoconservatives of committing are international crimes. Waging a war of aggression against a sovereign state without provocation or pretext is nothing if it is not a violation of international law. If the US courts can't take care of the matter, there shouldn't be a problem arguing that an international tribunal ought to have jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, it would be better to try Bush and company in federal court. The US could show that our system of justice is fair enough to try and punish our own leaders when they are accused and convicted of committing outrageous crimes against peace and also show that, in spite of Bush's assault on American democratic institutions, those institutions survived and still function.

[KharmaTrain]

60. I Think There's Plenty To Bring Saddam To The Hague

Not all his crimes were against his people. Let's not forget the mustard gas and the Iran/Iraq war that he provoked, or the invasion of Kuwait in '90 or launching scuds at Israel. Those surely broke an International Law or two.

I have zero trust in any Iraqi court that operates under the barrel of a gun...be it Saddam's or the Pentagon. The credibility of the Iraqi government is transparent and won't have any true legitimacy as long as U.S. soldiers remain on their soil.

While the rules may have changed, I recall Pinochet being called up on charges (I know in a British Court and there was a case pending in the World Court) and Pol Pot...all for actions within their borders. Genocide is genocide.

For now, I'd like to see someone launch a Paula Jones civil suit against this regime. This is a gift the Supreme Court has given Democrats that either scares people away or no one's aware about. The lawsuits against the Pentagon and Gitmo has done well in the courts and it sure be interesting for someone to sue this regime for wrongful death or some civil tort that opens the door for discovery and some real investigative and subpoena power.

Cheers

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Focus groups show that Democrats need to speak to what they can do as opposed to what the other guys.

Yes, the Democrats need to speak to what they can do. They need to explain how they will use military resources more effectively to fight a real war on specified terrorists, one in which success and failure may be clearly defined and measured, rather than an open-ended war on terror in general and certainly not to squander those resources by invading a country that did nothing to us and couldn't threaten us.

The value of the DSM minutes and memos is to keep a constant light on the lies and deceptions of this regime . . . .

However, in these circumstances, those lies are also crimes. Bush knew there was no legal justification for invading Iraq; he and his aides fabricated facts and dissembled intelligence reports in order to gain public support and Congressional approval for what was an unprovoked war of aggression. It was egregious violation of international law.

Throwing red-meat words like "impeachment" around sounds like retribution rather than justice.

If a murder is committed, is it retribution rather than justice to put the accused on trial?

I'd rather explain to Mr. & Mrs. Smith in Aurora, Illinois why they need to get a new Representative.

The reason that Mr. and Mrs. Smith need a new representative in Congress is because the one they've got won't hold Bush and his aides accountable for their wrongdoing. That will simply allow them to do it again. If these people are not stopped, they will take that as a green light to continue to terrorize the world.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Correction

Impeachment takes a simple majority in the House (218 votes if all members are present and voting).

Conviction on impeachment charges takes a two-thirds vote (67 votes if all members are present and voting).

[corbett]

18. Kicking An Important Reminder! n/t

[KoKo]

21. YESSSSSS! Thank you for this Post....indeed they did...and they

will have "Karhma" sitting on their heads for what they have done.

:-)'s and THANKS.....THANKS!!!!!

[assclown_bush]

29. Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach...

I know that this may not bring about the desired effect, Impeachment, but it sure feels good saying it. When the repugs impeached President Clinton, his poll numbers were high, higher than assclown bush's poll numbers are right now~but still we did not win the White House come 2000. And no matter how much we despise the chicanery of the repugs, Al Gore failed to ignite a fire under enough Democrats to make the difference between winning and losing. One would have thought that having President Clinton impeached would have made us run to the polls to voice our anger at the partisan way the American President was treated...but that failed to become a reality.

I know that if we impeach the chimp that the repugs will hate us even more than they do now. But so what? The chimp deserves to be impeached. We should not be namby-pamby about this, either we go for the jugular or we let chimp serve out his second term without incident. If given a choice, I opt for the former and not the latter.

:bounce:

[Jack Rabbit]

30. Well, ac_b

The reason we didn't win the White House in 2000 had more to do with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris than any residue from the Clinton impeachment.

Welcome to DU.

[smoogatz]

44. Gore helped Jeb! and Harris steal it

He ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history--and that's saying a lot. It should never have been close enough to steal, frankly. And I think the Clinton/Monica residue had a LOT to do with it. Eight years of peace and prosperity and the sitting VP runs neck-and-neck with to a guy who can hardly string a sentence together? The fault lies as much with Clinton and Gore as it does with the BFEE, if you ask me.

[assclown_bush]

66. I agree with you smoogatz...

It's sad to have to admit that Al Gore ran a poor campaign, but he did. The fact that he refused to have President Clinton campaign for him probably cost him the number of votes that would have made the difference between success and failure. I hate to kick a good man when he is down, but Al Gore failed to do what he set out to do. Jeb Bush and Catharine Harris did what republicans are good at: Cheat, Steal and Lie. All in the name of good moral X-tian values. The Clinton/Monica affair certainly did bring out all the fundy wackos and the holier-than-thous to the polls, but oddly enough, the hypocritical impeachment of President Clinton did not fire up enough Democrats as I would have imagined (and hoped) and sent them to the polls.

My point, and I do have one, is that the impeachment of bushCo would do no more harm to the Democratic party than the impeachment of President Clinton did to the repugs...it just gave them a taste of (major) victory and riled them up for the coming election.

:donut:

[assclown_bush]

67. Impeaching busH would make repugs hate us more. And that's a good thing.

Jack Rabbit, I agree with you that Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush were pivotal in winning the election for busH. The point that I was trying to make (but obviously failed in doing so) was that the Democratic response to President Clinton's impeachment did not send out enough angry Democrats to the polls to make the difference for Al Gore. When Bill Clinton was impeached one would have thought that Democrats would turn out in record numbers to avenge our President and to vote for Al Gore. That failed to happen.

Thanks for the welcome. :hi:

[libodem]

31. Boy Howdy!

And no one is making that big of a stink about it either. My God you would have thought Clinton killed somebody, the way they went on... and the people really didn't care..it should have just been hushed up and handled discretely. but nooooo, they had to make a big public display, a huge spectacle, do as much to embarrass and shame and humiliate..like Puritan witch burners that they are......And now we have a few blue stained dresses, but no Ken Starr. By the way, who puts people like, Ken Starr, up to such mischief..? Who are they and where can we get one? Special Procecuter...hmmmmm?

[gulliver]

32. I think they mean that to apply only to Democrats.

It spoils everything if it applies to Republicans too.

I'm also waiting to hear some Republican say "Impeachment? The American people have had enough of impeachment. They just want their president to do his job." Clinton's impeachment for a stupid reason means that you can't impeach Bush for a good reason. It's just too soon for another impeachment.

[Gold Metal Flake]

39. Oh, lets build on their vicious leadership!

Let us learn from the masters. Let us impeach en masse!

[bleever]

40. Kicking because of the pretty drawring. :)

:)

[mopaul]

41. my friend simon drew that with a piece of chalk.

iTIZ a lovely drawring.

[bleever]

47. I'm so happy to have the help of our tidy neighbors across the sea.

The lonely, the forgotten, the talented: don't underestimate us.

You cheeky monkey.

:)

[journalist3072]

45. Ding, ding! You're exactly right.

The Republicans did set the bar very low for impeachment. Lying about a consensual sexual affair, in their mind, was grounds for impeachment. So I say lying about the need to take the country to war is without a doubt grounds for impeachment.

[Ikonoklast]

48. They set the standard

and now they will have to deal with the consequences. Rethugs can read polls and they are all dropping like a rock. They will run away from this lame-duck assclown and his world-domination cabal just to try to save their political lives; however it will not save the traitors to the Constitution and their supporters from being called to account for their criminal acts.

[alfredo]

46. you’ve been hoisted on your own petard, assholes!

[are_we_united_yet]

49. Impeachment Eligibility:

1) You must be competent.
2) You must be unpopular with real Murican's.
3) You must commit some heinous crime, something bigger than loss of life over fabricated evidence (perhaps something sexual in nature).
4) You must have your commitment to the Military called into question (well maybe)
5) You must not have a DSL, Cable Modem or any other Direct Data Communication link into Heaven/God.

[smoogatz]

50. Excellent point

And while we can't expect the Republican congress to impeach Bush, we CAN insist that they apologize for impeaching Clinton, whose only "crime" was being marginally evasive about his personal life in a deposition in a civil case in which he was a witness--neither plaintiff nor defendant. That evasiveness was in response to questions that had no material bearing on the case, furthermore. For that, he was impeached.

We can also vote their sorry Republican asses out of office in '96. A Democrat majority congress would impeach Bush in a New York minute. Electing a Democrat majority congress in '06 should be the immediate goal for all of us. The odds of doing so are no worse than the Republicans', when they took over the House in '94. We can do it.

[Scout1071]

52. Bing-Go.

Nuff said.

[Cleita]

54. Look what I found by accident.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9513

[anarchy1999]

55. Just plain damned SWEET! Thank you Most DEAREST! You are a true

DU TREASURE!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Swamp Rat]

57. We better do it soon...

[philb]

61. It shouldn't matter much where the bar is set if you have solid documentat

ion of a clearly impeachable offense.

The Downing Street memo should be enough, but if not its also clear that according to testimony by officials to the 9/11 Commission,
some Pentagon and Whitehouse and military officials were complicit in 9/11. Surely that should be enough:
http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

[BiggJawn]

62. But who has Bush gotten a blow-job from?

You're right,but I think they set the bar TOO low.

Instead of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" they now have to prove sexual peccadilos... Unless Guckert wants to come clean, they'll never find Bush's "Blue Dress"....

[assclown_bush]

68. "Unless Guckert wants to come clean..."

Pun intended???

:rofl:

[BiggJawn]

71. Sure, why not?

:evilgrin:

[formernaderite]

63. I have mixed feelings on this impeachment movement....

I recall how the public rallied behind Clinton, not because they necessarily supported him...but because they didn't like the over zealous tactics of the republicans. Casually, during lunch conversation I've mentioned this...from a bunch of blue collar guys....I get "ah geez...not this crap again." I think we will lose the same way the repubs did in 98.

[KansDem]

70. This has been on my mind of late...

The GOP set themselves up as the "Party of Zealous Impeachers." They have indeed set the bar very low. Let's see if they will still exhibit their well-known obsession for the truth when the POTUS is one of their own.