Election rhetoric is over. Now we must move to impeach.

[Stinky The Clown]

Impeachment is a necessary outcome of our House majority.

The reasons to impeach are legion. There was no blowjob involved. There were, however, clearly high crimes and misdemeanors. The actions of the current administration are precisely what the impeachment standards were written for by the Founding Fathers.

Impeachment is needed not just for the country, but for the very standing of our nation in the eyes of the world. This isn't about George Bush, the man, although even on that score it could stand. Instead, this is about showing our nation, showing history, and showing the world that, as a nation and as a people, we will not and can not tolerate the way the country was hijacked by a radical element that managed to game the electoral system for nefarious purposes.

Some of the specific crimes, just so its clear:

~~Lying to the nation and the world as to the need to invade unprovoked a soveriegn nation.

~~Looting the national treasury through the award of highly questionable contracts. Although perhaps initially allowable (assuming there was a real national emergency), these contracts remain in place, even now, years later.

~~Crimes against humanity in the wanton killing of innocent civilians in a foreign country.

~~War crimes in the prosecution of more or less random detainees without charges.

~~War crimes in the use of torture on these same detainees.

~~War crimes in the stealing of a soverign foreign nation's natural resources.

No, impeachment is not a game. No, it isn't about retribution or payback for Al Gore or John Kerry. No, it isn't frivolous. It is deadly serious and it simply must be done. Indeed, to do it is to assume for our beloved Democratic Party a huge risk. In the still fresh aftermath of the sham impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, the nation may well not have the patience or the stomach to watch the proceedings yet again. But that is the cost of honor. It is a risk we must take. It is a wrath, if it comes, against which we must stand.

Impeachment is our moral and national and patriotic obligation.

[mike_c]

1. agreed, 100 percent....

Impeach. Indict. Imprison.

[partylessinOhio]

2. It must be done. Impeachment is mandated. Let's roll!

[LittleClarkie]

69. Which candidate ran on the issue of impeachment

Their mandates come from whatever issues they ran on, be it health care, energy independance or the war in Iraq.

[Fovea]

3. 'There is a tide in the affairs of men...'

And I feel that tide rising for impeachment.

[Totally Committed]

4. As much as I agree with you,

I don't think it's gonna happen, my friend... But, there is the specter of Committee Chairman Conyers looming large, so, I guess it could happen. I'll try and keep a good thought.

TC

[Big Sky Boy]

31. If you really want to scare the s*&! out of Dubya

We need to start talking about revoking that provision in the military tribunals act that retroactively excuses him and anyone he ordered to torture someone and granting them immunity from prosecution.

Don't have to mention the "I" word at all.

Just slip it in with the minimum wage bill and dare him to veto it.

[laugle]

37. That's a great idea!! But remember we have to be careful

not to look like we are playing the same game.......

[cali]

5. No thank you.

I'm all for investigations and seeing where they go, but of at least equal importance is cleaning up the filthy mess of Iraq, Gitmo, lack of health care, ensuring a federal raise in the minimum wage, investigating the corpocracy, preserving social security, revamping the prescription drug bill, clamping down on the unitary exec bullshit, ensuring the estate tax stays, not renewing tax cuts for the wealthy, the environment, and much much more.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. None of that is mutually exclusive to impeachment

Indeed, impeachment may well advance some of them.

[riona]

25. I agree with you

The repugs used too much valuable time on trying to bring down Clinton. Investigate, but please attend to business.

[cleveramerican]

7. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Move forward with OUR agenda. Don't fall into that trap. GET SOMETHING DONE FOR THE CITIZENRY!

IRAQ, HEALTH CARE, THE ECONOMY, all more pressing issues than looking backward for revenge

[Stinky The Clown]

11. RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT!

Impeachment doesn't stop the agenda. It is but one more task.

I'll bet you can walk and chew gum. So can the House.

If anything, it could also advance those items, not stall them.

[onenote]

8. You're going to be disappointed

The Democratic leadership has already made it clear that it does not intend to embark on what would be perceived as a highly partisan, backwards looking impeachment effort that has no chance of succeeding in the Senate and would serve to put at risk many of the newly elected Democrats from districts that are more red than blue, new members like Heath Shuler, etc.

I don't question your sincerity. But you should prepare yourself for the inevitable -- impeachment will not be part of the agenda of the Democratic congress.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I agree it is unlikely .....

..... but that doesn't make it wrong.

For what its worth, while I am an impeachment hawk, I will not be sorely disappointed if it doesn't happen. "Sanguine" is a better description of how I'll feel.

[struggle4progress]

22. Put an Impeach! bumpersticker on the car and then push for investigations.

Personally, I agree that impeachment is a pointless waste of time if the Senate won't convict. But that doesn't mean that citizens making noise for impeachment is a waste of time.

If the system were working properly, * would have been removed from office by now. Of course, it's not working properly. Investigations and oversight are needed, and those we can do. If we do them correctly and objectively, there should be a good political payoff.

But Congress has always had a back tendency to be spineless. Some kind of noisy pressure is needed from the grassroots, to shift the political center. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that main-stream America hears some folk screaming for impeachment, since then we can get TV interviews along the lines:

Q. Well, new Congresscritter So-and-so, what about impeachment?
A. It's certainly premature to talk about impeachment but we are taking our oversight responsibilities seriously and looking into reports that the Administration broke the law when it &c&c

[KaptBunnyPants]

26. You are probably right.

Impeachment requires political courage and a belief in the accountablity of elected officials. Even with the evidence of Republican felonies mounting, public support behind impeachment, and a demonstrated win-at-all-costs attitude taken by the RNC, there are few Democratic leaders willing to do what is required to protect the country. On the bright side, at least we won't have to memorize any new political figures 15 years from now - they will all be the same group of criminals who never got punished for their crimes in the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II administrations.

[marylanddem]

9. For all the unnecessary deaths: Impeachment YES. n/t

[Richardo]

10. You want to lose in '08, right?

[Stinky The Clown]

13. No, I want to win in 08

But doing the right thing is an important part of life, too, dontcha think?

[Richardo]

14. I'm not for dueling impeachments - THAT is not good for the country.

Let the criminal justice system have a go at him and Cheney in 2009.

Investigations up the ying-yang, but no impeachment.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I'm sympathetic to your sentiment ..... but ......

... just because they did it for pure political gain and made it a farce is no reason to say it isn't the right thing to do.

[laugle]

39. Of course it's the right thing to do....but when it comes to

politics, we know they don't always do the right thing.

Don't worry.....Bush will get what he so justly deserves.....he will be a pariah in the world, and will go down as one of the most imcompetent U.S. presidents in our history.

Karma's a bitch!!!

[Morgana LaFey]

23. through what mechanism?

would the justice system have a go at him?????? What you're looking for, if you want any justice, is IMPEACHMENT. THAT's the mechanism through which justice can be had.

On a broader note, the country is clearly looking for ACCOUNTABILITY in government, and I don't see how you can have that without some looking backward. I also don't see how you can have that without impeachment efforts on the part of the House.

ALSO, everything you let them get away with only emboldens and enables and empowers them for the future. That is PRECISELY how we got here, where we are with Bush2 -- we didn't hold them accountable for election skullduggery in 2000, we didn't hold Bush1 accountable for his sins in office, and if you want to go back far enough, we didn't hold Prescott Bush accountable on a permanent basis for financing the Nazis (we gave back his money and company once the war was over).

[dansolo]

48. All impeachment does is remove him from office

He would still need to be tried in court for any crimes that he is accused of. He could easily be tried after he leaves office. Now that he is truly a lame duck, pursuing impeachment will only hurt the Democrats. That said, I want them to go full speed ahead with all sorts of hearings, and I want eveyone put under oath.

[BlueStater]

45. What I want is for the laws of this land to be upheld n/t

[acmejack]

15. As much as I savor the image of prosecuting Bush,

I believe it is a distraction from the real issues we must address immediately.

[mtnsnake]

16. Thank you. Impeachment isn't just right, it's mandatory now.

[tavalon]

17. Yes

and we must take what turned out to be a prodigious and unexpected left blogoshere strength and place it towards this happening. Unfortunately, without our pushing, the Dems will likely continue to be appeasers, I think. But I don't think anyone here thinks our work is done. Not by a longshot.

[The Count]

18. Election reform first, then impeach

[Morgana LaFey]

24. Why not both at the same time?

[populistdriven]

20. No wasting political capital on Impeachment - Investigate & send him to the Hague!

[DemPower]

21. Impeachment is our moral and national and patriotic obligation

LOVE IT!!!

Illegal Wiretapping is all we need!....then we send him to the Hague for War Crimes....

[In Truth We Trust]

27. Rule of Law! Justice and Democracy! Impeach all conspirators!

[conservdem]

28. No thanks.

I hope that no time is spent on this. I hope they move on more important things.

[DuaneBidoux]

29. I don't agree. We need to stifle his power and carry out an agenda that benefits the country in...

real ways. Look how much energy was spent on the Clinton impeachment. Instead we need to keep him in check for 2 more years and work on the following things: things FOR the people like minimum wage increase, fixing medicare donut hole and negotiating for drugs, pushing stem cell research,and obviously trying to figure out what to do with this mess called Iraq. Also as much as possible for the legislative branch beginning to heal our relationship with the rest of the world.

We will be reelected (and ultimately do the most for the country) if we push a positive agenda to begin solving the mess left by the Repukes.

[yodermon]

30. Several points (do cheney first)

1) Will the Blue-Dog Dems in the House even vote to Impeach?
2) Could the Senate have ANY resonable expectation to vote 2/3 for conviction?

BUT

3) Do Cheney first. THAT would go down easier with the public, IMHO.

and


4) DON'T CALL IT IMEACHMENT. INVESTIGATE, Subpeona, investigate more, hold hearings, ad nauseum... until the full measure of pure filth that has been this Administration over the last 6 yrs is fully and foully exposed. Then and only then, might the Congress be conviced that impeachment is the only remedy to the situation. Personally I think that they'd all resign & appoint mccain or guiliani or somesuch before any impeachment actually happened. Just my $0.02

[Brigid]

32. Not in favor of impeachment.

Don't get me wrong -- for all the reasons you listed, and more, no president has ever been more deserving of impeachment than Bush. But all that would gain us is President Cheney instead, and that isn't exactly an improvement. We have much work to do if we're going to get started on cleaning up Bush's mess. Let's not get distracted with revenge fantasies, tempting as they are. Besides, it will be much more fun to watch Bush have to deal with a Democratic congress for the next two years. Can you say, "Lame Duck?" I thought you could. :evilgrin:

[El Fuego]

33. Exactly, impeachment is our patriotic obligation!

[dchill]

41. It is the DUTY of Congress.

There can be NO "political considerations" in discharging their duties.

[davidwparker]

34. We must move to hearings and when the PEOPLE hear what's been done,

move to impeachment. With the Dems having both houses (or will), we must lay out the case to the PEOPLE and then the Dem leadership will be acting on the their will. It would be FOOLISH to tick off the netroots/grassroots who were responsible for this victory.

Dems who fail to do what we want -- they work for us -- may find themselves turned out next.

[MGD]

35. It's a tough call. It isn't clear that we have a mandate for impeachment

There are other priorities that are higher IMO. We won this thing because there are really only two parties to vote for in America and most people were fed up with the other one. We can cement our position of power or we can undermine it. Tread carefully.

[Barack_America]

40. Absolutely agree! n/t

[blurp]

52. That's the MANDATE WE HAVE!

Fact is, people voted for Democrats in huge numbers because they want to stick it to Bush.

I say we don't disappoint them.

The other things can get done once the Democrats have the people's trust. That isn't going to happen if Bush is given a pass.

[MGD]

62. You assume too much. People voted for us because we're the lesseer of two evils

Don't even doubt it. Also don't doubt that that can change overnight. Impeachment is a card. Play it wisely. We have to hold what we have in 2008.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

67. You called it.

And anyway, do we have the required super-majority? I doubt it.

That doesn't mean the saber can't be rattled, however. As often as it takes. I think the right investigatory committee can move mountains, especially if the fuckers see the spectre of having to testify...

[laugle]

36. I have this strange feeling that Cheney will be the next to go!

Bush could then replace him with a possible candidate for 08" and possibly prevent an impeachment from the dems, because it would give the repubs a leg up on the coming election.

Of course we could impeach Bush and not throw him out like they did to Clinton!

I must admit that because we will likely have both the House and Senate it is very tempting.

But we have to look at the larger picture, i.e. the 2008 election.

Anyway.....let the investigations begin.......if the first priority were to impeach it would just look like revenge.

I think Pelosi is very smart and will do what's best for our party and our future.

[Nederland]

38. Thankfully

Our leadership is smart enough to disagree with you.

[Broken Acorn]

42. Impeachment to start in Berkeley

The impeachment process is already in place.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15958273.htm

BERKELEY - Residents here voted Tuesday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, impeach President George W. Bush and pump millions of dollars into the school district for smaller classes, music programs and school libraries, according to early returns.

Under Measure H, Berkeley will be the first city in the nation to petition the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The measure, which is symbolic because only Congress can impeach a U.S. president, had collected more than two-thirds of the vote, according to early returns.

[AntiFascist]

68. K&R

[Sensitivity]

43. Why impeach -- the gods and demons and International Criminal Court

are all against them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2943950

[Barack_America]

44. With Corruption and Scandal...

Being the main reason that people voted AGAINST Republicans (according to exit polls), why exactly do you think that stirring up scandal would benefit Democrats?

The people have sent a clear message to Washington that they want lawmakers to shut the hell up, stop all of the partisan squabbling and do their freaking jobs. The Democrats should listen to this message.

[incapsulated]

46. We don't have the numbers (2/3)

And we don't have the time.

This isn't what the dems were elected to do, waste time on a pointless quest which they don't have the votes to win, to "throw out" a lame duck with 2 years who will be out of office by the time they are finished or put Dick fucking Cheney in his place.

NO.

We can investigate everything they have done and covered up. And maybe some of them will wind up in jail. Works for me.

[BootinUp]

55. You're not a real democrat.

:hi:

got you to look.

[incapsulated]

66. haha.

:P

[GOTV]

47. Not yet...

... stop the bleeding first.

The Dem majorities make it impossible for Bush to continue injuring the country at will. Now stop the bleeding, stabilize the patient...

... and then start looking for the cause of the injury.

[Vidar]

49. 800 counts of treason, one for every signing statement!

[onenote]

50. he's not the first president to use signing statements

So that's not a realistic grounds for impeachment. And, while I know this is going to sound a bit strange, people need to realize that the fact that the president commits an act that is found to violate the Constitution is not per se an impeachable offense. Most presidents, directly ort through executive branch offices, take actions that are challenged in court and in some cases reversed by the courts on constitutional grounds.

One of the classic cases was Harry Truman's seizure of the steel mills in 1952 based on an assertion of "emergency war powers". The SCOTUS held that Truman's action violated the constitutional separation of powers. Yet, this decision did not lead to serious consideration of impeachment proceedings against Truman (indeed, more consideration was given to impeaching Truman earlier in his presidency in response to his decision to relieve Gen. MacArthur of his command).

[Stinky The Clown]

57. Those were small potatoes

What this cabal has done is not small potatoes.

Is not the crime of lying to the country, the congress, and the world to get ourselves into a war that kills over 3000 of our citizens and gods only kow how many uncounted Iraqi civilians a serious crime?

Is not the ordering of torture a serious crime?

Is not the awarding of contracts that are designed to loot our national treasury serious crimes?

That's just the cheap version of the Whitman's Sampler. But you get the idea, I'm sure.

[blurp]

51. When you get 3,000 American citizens killed, you get impeached.

[BootinUp]

53. Not you too?!!!

Oh dear. You all want to loose the majority in 2 years?

[Stinky The Clown]

56. Jim, NO one is above the law

We won this election to provide some oversight, checks, and balances. What he and his henchmen have done is not small potatoes. They are MAJOR crimes against humanity and the citizens of this and other countries.

I'm okay if the congress sidesteps for party good, but I will NOT condone it; only tolerate it.

There are some things that transcend political calculus.

[BootinUp]

60. Then let us

tolerate it together until such time as it makes sense to not do so. And its not just for the party, its for the country. One last comment, there are plenty of people who know it is called for, only they don't all want us to do it.

[Truthbeknown]

54. Here is an anthem for it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4kTnP5VJ1k

[pberq]

58. To all those calling fror hearings and investigations -

The White House will just stall, stall, stall. They will never allow themselves to be put under oath in an investigation.

[WestSeattle2]

59. Waste of time and energy, they won't even get 50 votes

let alone 67 to impeach. Look what impeachment did to repugs when they went after BC, even Clinton-haters voted for Bill because they loathed the repug congress for wasting time and money.


Q: What is required for a conviction?

A: Conviction requires a two-thirds majority vote of the senators present. If all 100 are present, that means 67 votes.

Q: What happens if the president is convicted on an article of impeachment?

A: If convicted, the president is considered immediately removed from office. There is no separate vote for removal.

[demo dutch]

61. Respectfully disagree! We'll lose 2008 guaranteed!

[MGD]

63. That's what I'm saying too. It's one possible option but it isn't a mandate by any means.

Wait and see how things unfold before laying that card down. Politics is still the name of the game.

[MethuenProgressive]

64. email Pelosi at: [e-mail]

[e-mail]

or use the form on her page:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html

[Divine Discontent]

65. my point is the best... (lol)

I'm leaving it to the ruling party in the halls of congress to figure out if after researching the matter he needs impeached, then they'll press the matter further.

otherwise, sure, I'd love him impeached, but if it's not clearly a very high probability, then we should NEVER say it as a PARTY until that moment comes, otherwise we truly risk losing what we JUST gained and how sad would that be? It's VERY cool for us to say impeachment so our party knows what we want and keep it on the "voter" level, but for the leaders to even bring it up would be bad, unless they know he's screwed with evidence.


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts