Look toward the FUTURE and not the PAST!

[Barack_America]

That is my plea to all of you salivating at the prospect of beginning impeachment and endless investigations into the Bush administration.

This administration is essentially over. They are nearly inconsequential at this point. Let history deal with them.

The voters of this country have given the Democrats a CHANCE, not a MANDATE. This election was not an expression of support for the Dems, but an expression of disdain for the Repubs.

If the Dems show that all they are interested in is getting revenge on Bush, these voters will almost assuredly go back to the Repubs.

But if the Dems show that they have a PLAN to make this country a better place and to end the war in Iraq, then they stand a good chance of winning over these voters permanently.

If you want to assure that Democratic power lasts for only 2 years, then by all means cry and scream for impeachment. But, if you believe in Democratic ideals and want to see them realized for YEARS to come, then please encourage our new leadership to attack the ISSUES not the Bush administration.

That's my 2 cents.

[Webster Green]

1. Fuck that!....I want to see that asshole in prison.

We can multi-task.

These people need to be held accountable for their war crimes.

[Barack_America]

3. Do you hate the Republicans more than you love the Democrats?

If you want to see the Republicans burn more than you want to see the Democrats succeed, then demand impeachment.

If you want to see the war scrutinized more than you want to see our country improve, then by all means demand impeachment.

The Dems can't multitask. It will take them more than two years to accomplish their agenda, but if they spend all of that time focusing on the wrongs of the Bush administration, then two years is all they will get.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.

[Webster Green]

4. Couldn't disagree more!

Sure, I admit I want to see payback, but it's also about accountability.

We need to expose the lies that got us into the Iraq war. People are still getting killed daily.

These assholes have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Sorry, but they need to be held accountable, and we need to make sure that this kind of crap never happens again.

[Barack_America]

9. The question is focus...

What do you focus on? The new leadership needs to set the tone for what their agenda will be about. If they immediately go for investigations, then that will be their agenda. But if they first push the issues, say by getting the raise in the minimum wage, and THEN start up a few select investigations they set themselves up for future victories.

First show the American people that they are going to push issues that benefit them, THEN when they have their support, think about going after the Bushies.

Future first!

[Webster Green]

11. Well, you say we can't multi-task, and I disagree...

Why do you think that investigations and legislation cannot be done simultaneously?

I'm not suggesting that we immediately start insisting on impeachment, but if investigations (which are warranted) indicate high crimes, then, the rule of law must be applied.

Why is it that this particular gang of folks is seen (by some) to be above the law, and immune from oversight?

[GOTV]

15. You may be able to multi-task but the public can't multi-listen

That's why news stories eclipse each other.

If you raise the minimum wage and investigate Bush at the same time, people and the media will only pay real attention to one or the other. You'll only get half credit for your work.

What ever we're doing, we should not distract the public by doing something else at the same time.

Pick one thing, like raising minimum wage, do it and talk about it. Make sure everyone sees you doing it. Let it sink in. and when it get's old, then start on the next thing on your list.

Let the public fully savor each action.

We want them to be glad they elected us. You wouldn't enjoy a meal if every bite contained some of every item you were eating - a little chicken, a few peas, some mashed potatoes, some bread, some wine and some pie in every bite. Let's not feed our agenda to the American public the same way.

Do one thing, do it well, do it publicly, and then move on to the next item.

Frankly, we should hold off on the investigations for a bit so that our findings will come out when they cause them the most harm, near the next election.

[Barack_America]

22. Thank you. Very well put.

I'm getting slammed in another thread because I couldn't articulate that as well as you did.

I referred to it as a "business-like manner" and now suddenly I'm in cahoots with Enron. Sheesh.

[democrat_patriot]

2. Start investigations into all the lies. Impeachment will take care of

itself. Hell, the repukes will be calling for it to save their political lives. " * lied to us!"

[pdrichards114]

5. We all want to see Chimpy in prison

But, even though we won yes, the people in the country as a whole, do not like, nor will they ever go for retribution politics. I agree there needs to be investigations, but if the Dem's go gangbusters this will cause more trouble than it solves. We need to pick a couple of major crimes/lies, the worst of the bunch, and unfortunately let the rest go.

[Barack_America]

8. I agree.

Certainly the most egregious wrongs must be investigated, but to dredge up everything and go after everyone is totally counterproductive.

[Barack_America]

6. Can I get an AMEN for the issues here?

Everyone says that the Dems are all talk and no action, that they are all scandal and rhetoric.

Is that true?

What is the No.1 issue that you think the new dem leadership should push? Minimum wage, healthcare? Certainly you care more about the welfare of our citizens than you do about that ass in the White House?

[truthisfreedom]

7. those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it.

i say move forward quickly while draining the swamp dry.

[pdrichards114]

10. I think we should do issues first before dredging up the past.

Fulfill some campaign promises, raise the minimum wage, fix medicare part D, repeal the tax package that 99% of American didn't benefit from, etc. Then after we have demonstrated the integrity of the Democratic party, then begin on the investigations.

[Webster Green]

12. Ignoring the deaths of 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians?

Thats absurd. This isn't a game. These people are guilty of war crimes.

That IS an issue!

[pdrichards114]

13. I totally agree with you,

Consider this though, Nancy Pelosi said impeachment is off the table, another post I just read summarizes why,



Point_n_click (107 posts) Wed Nov-08-06 12:20 PM
Original message
Real reason "impeachment off table"
When I first heard that line from Nancy Pelosi I got hot under the collar because those of us paying attention know it is deserved. Then I had time to think about how it might all play out and realized the wisdom of saying it was off the table.

1. When the Pretzel and his Vice get impeached the next person in line is Speaker of the House. That would make it look like a political power grab and not something in service to the nation.

2. Once investigations have solid evidence that can't be disputed no matter how much it's spun then the Speaker can call for it with most of the public supporting it and without it looking like a power grab.

3. Once the case becomes clearly open and shut the Repubs will have no choice but to support the impeachment and the conviction or the public will see their refusal as more corruption.

I'm no longer upset with Nancy Pelosi for her comment. I understand the reasoning behind it now.



We have to proceed carefully, otherwise it could explode in our collective face.

[GOTV]

16. Don't ignore it...

... just don't lead with it. This is the proper order of actions:

1st - stop the bleeding
2nd - investigate the bleeding

Stopping the bleeding is, getting us on the right track on Iraq, raising the minimum wage, repealing tax cuts, etc.

Once America is on the right track again, THEN we start asking the tough questions about who screwed up. We've got two years to work with.

[Webster Green]

18. America is on the right track again..time to clean up the mess...

Investigations are part of that process.

I do not get the theory that says we can only do one thing at a time, or that we can't let the Murken people hear the truth just yet......we have to wait till they are ready for it.

Bullshit!

[GOTV]

19. What part of either of my posts is unclear?

Did you read them?

I didn't say we couldn't do more than one thing at a time - I said we shouldn't.
I didn't say we couldn't let American people hear the truth, in fact I think we should.

So no, I don't think you read my posts - you just responded to them.

If you actually respond to what I've said we could discuss it. I'm not going to simply re-explain what you didn't read the first time. What exactly is wrong with either of my previous posts?

[Webster Green]

25. Could/should...whatever....

I read your posts.

I disagree.

Get over it!

[GOTV]

37. It's a big difference....

... But you didn't say you disagreed, you said you didn't "get" it. So, I'm expressing a willingness to help you "get" it. If you said you disagreed that would have been the end of it.

If you don't want a discussion, don't post.

I doubt you disagree though. To disagree with a point requires first understanding the point.

I suspect you were right the first time. You don't "get" it.

[blm]

32. Seems to me people WANT to back up Clinton CLOSING THE BOOKS on BushInc yet AGAIN.

That worked out well for this country and the world, didn't it?

[Webster Green]

14. OK, I agree with all that, except the delay in investigations...

We are in deep shit in Iraq because of (ahem) "faulty intelligence....blah...blah...blah". It is important to determine why this happened, and make sure it doesn't happen again.

We need investigations and oversight now, not when it seems like the coast is clear for us to take that responsibility seriously without offending a bunch of chimp-lickers.

Most people in the country would love to see the chimp do the perp walk, and would cheer the dems on.

[blm]

30. That could be done in 2 weeks. Investigations can start right after.

After all, the Dems already drafted alot of the bills that got voted down in the past, so they're ready to go.

[Generator]

17. No accountablity

Yes, of course AMNESTY is the first thing you are concerned with. LEAVE my poor President alone. It doesn't matter that he and his best guy Rummy had people tortured on his say so- (and innocent people are being tortured right now as you beg to forgive your precious leaders that deserve nothing) it doesn't matter that he circumevented the constitituion-what matters is we ignore all this and MOVE on. Hide the dirt. Wow, would you say that if your kid was raped and murdered? LET's MOVE on. Yes, you are practically threatening the Democrats with moving on OR lose our power. Impeachment isn't the issue. The truth is. Which you have NO interest in. Bush doesn't need to be impeached, just shown to be the lie over and over again that he is so that the word REPUBLICAN and neo-con are poison for the next hundred years.

[Barack_America]

21. If you were given a choice...

To either go forward with impeachment and smear Bush/Cheney/Rumsfled (glad that I can call him that now)

-or-

To increase the minimum wage, make healthcare available to more Americans, remove restrictions on stem-cell research, etc.

Which would you choose?

Congress can only do so much at one time, it can only have one focus. Which focus would you choose?

[blm]

31. They are all connected - Bush had power BECAUSE of coverups. Power to STOP stem cell

research and minimum wage hikes, and a fair healthcare system.

If Bush1 hadn't been covered for by Clinton, there would have BEEN no Bush2, and no GOP takeover of congress in 94 so we would have HAD universal healthcare 10 years ago. We'd have signed Kyoto and minimum wage would be a LIVING WAGE by now.


How is it that you don't GET that?

[Barack_America]

33. He doesn't have the power now!

So now that we have the power, what do we prioritize, investigation of why certain things were or were not done or actually DO them?

[blm]

36. Point being that whatever you dod do will get DISMATLED when they regain power

which they would be able to do because their crimes were never exposed in the first place.

Did you like how Bush went in and dismantled 8 years of Clinton's good actions, and did it within his first 4 years?

You want all the good that comes from a Dem congress now to be erased as soon as BushInc retools and restores themselves with an all new advance team?

If that's what you want, then by all means, CONTINUE SUPPORTING THE COVERUPS.

[Child_Of_Isis]

20. This election was not an expression of support for the Dems

but an expression of disdain for the Repubs....

....geesh...turn off the tele...it'll rot your brain.

[McKenzie]

23. "Let history deal with them"? 650,000 people are dead for a start

a country that once boasted a good health care system, women's rights being respected, scientific investment and a whole host of other good things is currently being ripped apart by sectarian violence that any high school student with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of Iraq could have predicted and you say "Let history deal with them". Maybe we should say that every time a murderer or rapist is caught..."Let history deal with them".

No thank you. Evil deeds deserve a proper response from a civilised society. "Let history deal with them" is a tad inadequate as a response to actions that have left children without parents, whole families traumatised and a country in ruins.

edit - speled a wurd rong

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. Are you old enough to remember...

that most of the current criminals hiding out in the White House were with the Reagan & Bush I administrations? That when they were with those administrations they were involkved with a LOT of very dirty activities? If they had been properly investigated and CRUSHED back then for the bastards they were, we might have been saved the last 6 years of horror.

These people need to be exposed, they need to be run out of DC, and we need to make sure that that they will NEVER have such influence on our country and goverment again.

Because they ARE like The Undead - if we don't drive a stake through their hearts they WILL be back.

Unless you're really looking forward to 8 years of President Jeb Bush....

[blm]

26. The ISSUE Americans care about is CORRUPTION - How do you deal with CORRUPTION without

investigations?

And closing the books in 1993 for Bush1 is what led this country to a Bush2 administration bringing back all of the criminals from Bush1.

You want Bush2 protected the same way? That's CRONYISM not American justice.

You are declaring that keeping the citizenry UNINFORMED is the right course to take. That's not different from Bush's position.

[happydreams]

41. Excellent point. We need to get the rot of out of the system and

the only way to do it is to expose it first.

[blm]

27. Question for you Kristi: Could you make that case in front of the 9-11 families?

Robert Parry: HEY DEMOCRATS, TRUTH MATTERS!
Hey, Democrats, the Truth Matters!
By Robert Parry
May 11, 2006

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA
After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results
Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

[Barack_America]

28. Could you make that case to a family struggling on minimum

wage and without healthcare that although the Democrats promised to help them, they can't because they're too busy going after Bush?

Politics is about difficult decisions. I prefer to focus on things that make positive changes for people before criticizing past poor decisions.

[blm]

29. Minimum wage is popular and going through, no matter what. Opening the books

on a widespread criminal enterprise like BushInc effects EVERY ISSUE.

Minimum wage couldn't go through because BUSH HELD TOO MUCH POWER.

Why did he hold so much power from 2000 thru 2007? Because the books were never opened on Bush1.

Bush2 DISMANTLED many of the good things accomplished by Clinton within 2 years.

Is that what you want to keep happening? Pendulum swings where the working class becomes a yo yo in DC, yet again?

The American people need truth to make informed decisions on electin day. They haven't been able to do that much the last 13 years now, have they?

Opening the books helps ALL Americans, especially the working class. Cut out the corruption and there's more money for fair wages.

And YES, I could make that case to a minimum wage earning family.

Now, could you make YOUR case to the 9-11 families?

[Barack_America]

34. Could you make your case to the SURVIVORS of 9-11...

For example, the first responders who are so sick with lung disorders that they can't work and, in some cases, are dying. Could you make the case to them, that we can't help them right now with healthcare and affordable education for their kids because we are more concerned with the people who DIED on 9-11 than the people who are DYING from 9-11?

I'm sure that these people are MUCH more concerned with revenge than they are with their own well-being and their family's security.

[blm]

35. Yes I could make that case, especially since opening the books would ASSURE an event

like 9-11 would be less likely to ever occur again. Opening the books is a PREVENTION measure, as all honest prevention measures must first start with the TRUTH and the FACTS about what went wrong in the first place.

Now - you make a case to the survivors of 9-11 that it's OK to keep the books closed.
Funny how you refuse to do that and completely ignore the VALUE of truth to this country, the world, and its citizens.

[Barack_America]

38. I don't want to keep the books closed...

I just don't want to carry out so many investigations that the Congress is powerless to help the people in the US and Iraq who are still suffering.

Finish the war first, then go back and investigate people. That's what the public wants.

[blm]

39. Open the books and no investigation has to continue for longer than necessary.

It's the STONEWALLING that drags investigations on.

[Barack_America]

40. So are we now arguing for the same point?

We are both for investigations. I just don't want the investigations to get out of control and hinder accomplishment of the Democrats agenda. That is why I'm against impeachment (considering there isn't support for impeachment among the public and we don't have a 2/3 majority).

Do things, but focus on things that will yield results, not things that are just for show.

[blm]

44. I am dead serious about corruption and want RESULTS - I am against SHOW hearings and investigations

and prefer serious hearings and investigations.

I loathed the senate's dirty song lyric hearings because they took the media spotlight from some of the most major crimes of Reagan-Bush administrations.

[Barack_America]

45. Okay, so we have common ground...

My fear is that the Democrats will try to investigate everything all at once. I say to go after the things where there is the most meat, but to keep the overall focus on getting out of Iraq and laying down the Democratic agenda.

Impeachment, IMO, could only be for "show" because there is no way we could get the 2/3 majority. So, if it's not going to work, why do it when it's only going to piss the voters off?

If there's anything that this election showed is that they want RESULTS from their government!

[blm]

46. the common ground for ALL Americans is open the books to the citizens

Government OF the people, BY the people, For the people, accountable TO the people.

[happydreams]

42. You can't have progress with crooks in the mix. THEY HAVE

TO GO!

[Barack_America]

43. And they WILL go!

In two years they are gone. Even if you do move for impeachment, their time will likely be up before you could EVER rally the 2/3 majority to remove them! The only thing you would succeed in doing in that time is to kill the Dems chance for the White House in 2008.

[happydreams]

49. Let me add. The Bush Dynasty must be destroyed!

[Barack_America]

50. And holding off to impeach him AFTER he leaves office

so that he can't hold public office ever again doesn't accomplish this because????

There is NO way that impeachment will succeed when he's still in office, if you REALLY want him to be convicted you should be pushing to hold off on any possible impeachment until 2009.

[incapsulated]

47. A-fucking-men, but....

But investigations, vigorous investigations, must be done.

They will not be the distraction an impeachment process is and they are necessary.

Crimes have been committed, impeachment, even if it was possible, would only send Bush home a few months early. He won't go to jail.

[KitSileya]

48. Isn't that what Clinton said in 1993?

Over the exact same people? And he ended up fighting for his political life over absolutely ridicuous issues, and completely beseiged by them in Congress, and then they rebuilt enough to steal the election in 2000. And 2002. And 2004? Which in turn destroyed America to the degree that we got Tuesday?The only reason it has come this far is because Americans aren't aware of who they've actually voted for - thinking Bush a decent man with Cheney to do the serious foreign policy stuff got them elected. WOuld they have been elected if people knew the truth about Bush41, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, IranContra, and so on.

We need to stop this criminal syndicate, or they'll continue to destroy the USA, the world, the Republican Party, and the livelihood of all but the very few. Otherwise, they'll keep grabbing power every now and then, run the country into a ditch (making themselves very rich in the process) and layng waste any improvements the Democrats manage to do.