Anti-impeachment? Think we shouldn't investigate the administration?

[Zhade]

No.

See, what many of you fail to understand is, no matter how you spin the arguments against investigation and likely impeachment - NO.

Just... no.

We simply will NOT allow them to get away with their crimes.

There is nothing you can say to stop us from listening to our conscience. Nothing. If I don't try, I would be failing myself. I won't do that.

There is no debate on this matter. It is not based on popularity. It is already decided.

You can aid us, or please move aside so that justice be pursued per the rule of law.

We will hold them accountable.

[Mythsaje]

1. I have yet to see a DUer argue against investigation...

Impeachment will naturally follow once the people are made aware of the scope of their crimes. But, until then, I'd rather it be a stealth project than something conducted right there where everyone can see it and comment on it.

I want to see corruption probes of Congress. The VOTERS want to see corruption probes of Congress. They said so.

And I'll better dollars to donuts that these probes will provide even MORE evidence for impeachment.

Sometimes I swear half the people here have no sense of strategy at all. Instant gratification or nothing.

Sheesh.

[Zhade]

40. I've seen it.

It's wrapped up in "let's move on" and "the country wants bi-partisanship".

[lillilbigone]

57. Show it to us then.

Because I don't believe it's true that you've seen a DUer arguing against investigation.

[Hosnon]

2. No problem with investigating and holding them accountable. But conviction is

next to impossible (67 votes needed).

We only have 51 and I doubt most of them would vote to convict.

Impeachment is a political tool if conviction is extremely unlikely. We need to investigate and fix everything that Bush has messed up. A vote in the House to impeach will do just as much to Bush as it did to Clinton...

[Mythsaje]

3. that also brings up another point...

Investigating Congress might give us leverage to use against the President later.

Rushing to the finish line without taking everything into consideration isn't the best idea.

[Demeter]

10. The "Impossible" Just Takes a Little Longer

In politics, there is no such thing as impossible.

[Hosnon]

29. But there is such a thing as "next to impossible" - which this seems to be. nt

[McKenzie]

4. Having read the replies to your post I agree with the strategy approach

Investigations of the reasons behind the Iraq war will uncover a lot of damaging information and possibly help sort out the mess in the process. I have no doubt that many Repugs are shitting themselves at the prospect of deep investigations into who did what.

Impeach is an instinctive "get the bastard" reaction but it is a primitive one. A better way is to let the mills of justice grind slowly and thus exceedingly fine.

I still believe the Iraqi people should have a say in all of this as I said in an earlier post this morning; we are being rather arrogant if we presume to speak for them. That being said, I would counsel them against immediate impeachment.

[merwin]

5. Investigations WITHOUT impeachment are far more productive, in every way!

For example, if we hold immediate impeachment hearings, it makes us look vengeful. That is the last thing we need, as it can be spun by the GOP in the nastiest of ways. Plus, you're only getting rid of one or two people.

Impeachment hearings are a one shot deal, and they will most likely NOT end in Bush getting convicted. And if they do, so what? You're left with a plethora of other corrupt politicians that you can't go after because you spent all of your time on these drawn out impeachment hearings.

We need to look like we are bringing ethics back into politics. So, we investigate every corrupt SOB in Congress and in the Administration... pull out ALL of the dirt. This will force NUMEROUS Republicans to resign, with some of the administration going with them. We take out as many of the corrupt buggers as we possibly can.

Let Bush dangle in the wind. He's powerless. Just a figurehead. If you honestly think he's running the show, I pity you! That guy doesn't have the mental power to run a lemonade stand, let alone a country!

Think Jenga! Take the top piece off and you'll do nothing. Take out the supporting pieces and the whole stack comes crumbling down.

[pnwmom]

6. Of course we should investigate, or as Nancy Pelosi says,

"drain the swamp."

But I don't want to impeach unless we have the 67 votes to convict him. Because otherwise, Bush will be able to say he was found NOT GUILTY of all the charges, and he and all his supporters will feel vindicated.

I would rather dig up all the dirt and make him wallow in it for the next two years.

Impeachment by itself doesn't hold him accountable, especially if he is found not guilty in the Senate.

[Tennessee Gal]

8. Investigate, Investigate, Investigate

Expose the lying criminals until they have no choice but to resign. I believe that is what Americans voted for.

But don't waste time on impeachment. Don't become what we hated about the radicals who pursued Bill Clinton.

There are important issues to address like a raise of the minimum wage, healthcare, ending the Iraq war, Homeland Security, tax cuts for the lower and middle class, tax increases for the wealthy and huge corporations, education, etc. These things are far more beneficial to the American people than impeachment and to Democrats in the long run.

Democrats need to increase their control of the Senate and get the White House in 2008.

[BikeWriter]

13. Those bastards owe an accounting to the troops!

Those bastards owe an accounting to the troops they've killed and crippled with their treachery. No one will ever convince me bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice, and Powell didn't know Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans was manufacturing evidence. They are traitors to America!

[MattSh]

7. And unfortunately.....

This country has a lot of problems it didn't have 6 years ago. While the primitive side of me screams for revenge, the logical side say "fix the problems". Only that way can we build a real Democratic legacy going into 2008 and beyond.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Without a two-thirds vote to convict in the Sentate...

impeachment is a quixotic exercise in futility.

Those 67 votes simply aren't there; therefore, even talking about the issue at this point is nothing more than a waste of time and energy.

And there's far too much to be done in the coming legislative session for time and energy to be devoted to the bloody circus impeachment would surely be. The focus should be on working to undo the damage done in the past six years, not on punishing Bush. Anyone who thinks impeachment should be the first item on the agenda has their priorites seriously out of whack.

[cali]

11. Let's stop putting the cart before the horse and

go where ever investigations lead. BTW, it's not up to you. It's up to Pelosi and other leaders in the House.

[LynneSin]

28. Smartest answer!!

We don't need to label the investigation an impeachment in order to do it. Just do it, the rest will happen naturally!

[Zhade]

42. I do believe I accounted for that in my OP.

Let's see...

"...against investigation and likely impeachment"

Funny, investigation is right up front. So there's no cart before-the-horse going on here.

[lillilbigone]

59. What you did was prop up a strawman.

You pretended that someone is calling for no investigation.

However, you haven't been able to refer to that someone by name, because no such person exists at DU.

[Zhade]

62. I've seen them with my own eyes.

Are you saying I'm lying?

[lillilbigone]

76. Please show it to us then.

Why not just show us these posts on DU that you claim argue against investigating? if they exist

[MethuenProgressive]

12. email Pelosi - put IMPEACH in the subject line

[e-mail]

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

[BikeWriter]

14. Thanks, I posted that on my Delphi Forum, too!

[philb]

15. All corruption and waste should always be invested

[onenote]

16. Nominated for strawman post of the year

No one is saying that the Congress shouldn't exercise its oversight responsibilities. There should and will be hearings. But don't delude yourselves into thinking that they are a run-up to impeachment. They won't be. They will, hopefully, further tarnish this administration and put a number of potential repub presidential contenders in an awkward position going into 2008 in terms of having to attack or defend the administration. It will do the same for repub incumbents. But knowing, politically, where to push and where to hold back, is what its all about. And absent a smoking gun that I can assure you will never appear, the portions of the public that just handed the Democrats victory and that we need to persuade to stay on board, will not stick with us if we get ahead of them. Some say that we need to be ahead of the public, because that is "leadership." In politics, its simply a prescription for losing support.

[Allyoop]

17. Investigate and reveal

Absolutely!!! Everything should be on the table for some "Sunshine" and disinfectant. Investigate everything and publish the findings. Impeachment would just be a "feel-good gotcha". It's more important to get honesty and accountability back in government. Make them sweat and hopefully clean up their acts!
Punishment will follow revelations of wrong-doing but an impeachment process would just suck all the air out of incremental revelations of massive corruption on the part of the GOP. Pull them all in amd make them defend or repent.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Yes, you will allow them to get away with their crimes, actually.

You don't have any choice. To impeach Bush would require a 2/3rds majority. We don't have a 2/3rds majority, and we're not going to get it.

No matter what the Democrats do, Bush is not going to be impeached. This is something it's vital to remember: calling for "impeachment" is a misnomer, what you should be calling for is "attempted impeachment", which is the only thing available.

You can certainly make a case that we should try and impeach Bush even though it's doomed to failure, simply on grounds of abstract justice, and to make a point. I think this is a mistaken position, but it's certainly not at outright absurd one.

Saying "we should start impeachment procedings against Bush to punish him for his crimes" *is* absurd, though - it's like saying "we should start singing The Sound of Music to punish Bush for his crimes" - neither course of action would result in Bush being punished.

By all means investigate and expose Republican misdemeanours. But don't waste valuable time trying to get Republicans to vote to find themselves guilty.

[EFerrari]

20. If the Republicans thought it would put them back in power, they would

impeach their own mothers en mass.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Possibly.

But the Democrats trying and failing to impeach would be an absolute godsend for the Republicans in 2008, while a succesfuly impeachment, while it might benefit them, wouldn't do them nearly as much good.

[EFerrari]

25. That's a pretty accurate statement of the political calculus.

And in an amoral political world, it might be the "right" calculus.

[Barack_America]

23. I agree. But that implies overwhelming public support for...

Impeachment. Are you hearing that? I'm not. What I'm hearing is overwhelming public support for getting the hell out of Iraq.

[EFerrari]

24. How old are you? I lived through the Watergate hearings. Most

people didn't even know what they were about.

Impeach him for Iraq. John Dean has already laid out a case -- so has Ramsey Clark, for that matter.

Knit the two together. It's easy enough.

/it's "Clark" not "Clarke".

[Barack_America]

26. Certainly old enough to remember the mockery...

That was the Clinton impeachment.

Nobody seems to be answering this question, why impeachment NOW? When we are stuck in Iraq, our country is a mess, we don't have to votes for conviction, when it would kill Dem chances in 2008. With all this, why NOW?

You do realize that he can be impeached even after he leaves office, don't you?

[EFerrari]

33. Because when a crime has been committed, one generally

doesn't wait for a politically convenient time to prosecute the perpetrator.

Btw, it's never a convenient time to put your political considerations aside in the public's service. Ask Karl Rove.

[Barack_America]

34. Are you sure about that?

It seems to me that crimes are prosecuted based on when it's politically convenient ALL THE TIME!

Now, in a perfect world, should that be the case, of course not. But in a perfect world, everybody is informed and votes! In a perfect world, the media has substance and focuses on real issues and not the scandal du jour!

Given that we obviously don't live in this perfect world, do you still want to follow a course of action that would likely put control of the government back in the hands of Republicans?

[EFerrari]

35. So the murder of uncountable innocents is not a substantive

issue in your mind? It's a "scandal du jour"? I don't even want to ask about habeus corpus.

And while all prosecutors operate in a political environment, expedience is mitigated by the law. Because we don't live in a perfect world, we have the law -- whether it's convenient for the hacks of one or another political party or not. Finally, it probably won't be up to them. It's not what political parties are for in any case.

[Barack_America]

36. No, I did not call it a "scandal du jour"

I said that thats what the MSM media focuses on. If there was an impeachment, every little squabble between the parties would become the focus of the media. We probably would hear less of the investigation and we would certainly hear nothing of the Democrats's domestic agenda.

Given that the impeachment would undoubtedly fail, I see no reason to puruse it and place it as a higher priority than easing the suffering of people both here and in Iraq (for the distraction that impeachment would cause would surely prolong the war).

Nobody is disagreeing with investigations, it's proceding with a futile impeachment that I disagree with.

[Zhade]

43. Thanks for your assistance.

It bewilders me that anyone here would speak of not following the law for political expediency.

Well, as I already told them, MY answer is - no.

I will continue to fight for justice, political expediency be damned. I guess if some don't like that they can try to stop me, but they won't succeed.

And I'm soooooooooooooooooo not alone.

[EFerrari]

51. No, you're not alone. In fact, most of the world is with you on this. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. One *does* wait until/unless there's a chance of a conviction, though.

If there ever comes a time when the Democrats have 2/3rds majorities, or close to it, *then* perhaps start talking about going after Bush.

Until then, investigate by all means, but don't waste time that can be spend on things that would actually benefit America on an impeachment attempt that's doomed to failure.

[Barack_America]

22. LOL! I don't know though, I think that hearing that song enough...

Might just *be* punishment, particularly if they make Ashcroft sing it! Wait a second, isn't blasting annoying songs over and over again actually a CIA torture tactic?

[Zhade]

41. Thanks for your opinion.

As I said, no. I will continue to work for investigations, and impeachment if (when) the evidence points toward the need to impeach.

[Barack_America]

19. At THIS time, what does impeachment gain that investigations...

Don't? Given that there is NO WAY that we can get a 2/3 majority to convict....NOTHING!!

So then, why impeachment over investigations? Why go through the utter distraction and risk the political fallout from impeachment when you get the same outcome as investigations?

The American people have said (screamed, actually) that they want us out of Iraq, and considering Congress is designed to represent the people...

Now when we are out of Iraq, if the American people scream to impeach the bastard then I'm all for it.

[LynneSin]

27. Investigation is not the same as Impeachment

Investigation should be done and can be done without slapping the impeachment label on it. Trust me, if we find this guy is dirty (and that won't be hard), impeachment will just come naturally

[gristy]

32. Just as I said below, Lynne.

We even both used the word "natural". :)

[Zhade]

44. So some of you just fear the use of the word impeachment.

You don't have a problem with going through with it, as long as the investigations lead to it (which they will, with a Conyers or a Waxman following the widely-available evidence for these crimes).

That's not so bad a disconnect. You still want to see justice served; you're just scared to admit it for fear it'll hurt politically.

I don't know that you should feel scared, but hey, as long as you want the process to begin and go wherever it leads, I've got no problem with anyone not saying the word.

(But I will still say it, if I feel so inclined. I think the people probably want to say it themselves.)

[Barack_America]

48. I have a fear of saying President Elect Cheney...

Not of saying impeachment. Impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. See, not afraid.

[Zhade]

65. Impeach Cheney first.

Following the necessary investigations that will (based on the evidence we ALREADY have) lead to impeachment.

Makes more sense to go after Cheney anyway, as he's the real power behind the throne.

[LoZoccolo]

30. That's cool because we were all hoping you would start it.

As the person in charge of whether or not the Democrats investigate, you made the right decision!

[Zhade]

45. Ah, such flippancy.

Again - don't care if you dislike it. I and others who agree with me WILL be calling for investigations and impeachment.

[LoZoccolo]

50. Rock on.

I and others who agree with me will be calling for free lap dances and cans of Rockstar energy drink.

[TheWatcher]

55. That Post right there is the perfect crystalization of how Vapid and Useless

People like you are.

No follow-up needed. You did it perfectly yourself.

Go back to your Bubble-World.

Now that we won something, all is forgiven.

Unbelievable.

[LoZoccolo]

56. What?

I can't care about the world I live in and enjoy strippers and caffeine? I'm confused.

[Zhade]

63. What else do you expect from him?

He's got like 90% of DU on ignore for daring to disagree with him, he's gotta amuse himself SOMEHOW.

[LoZoccolo]

67. I took everyone off of ignore after the election, as I said I would.

I don't think I have put anyone on ignore simply for disagreeing with me. I have put people on ignore for not being very smart, though.

But yes, there were over 900 people on the list spanning two years. According to some numbers I've seen, that's more like 20-25% of active DU members within one week, but again, this was accumulated over two years so it's not even that much.

[gristy]

31. I've heard no one say this administration should not be investigated

Many of its activities will be investigated. If serious crimes are found to have likely been committed, then the natural flow will lead to a House inquiry, followed by a vote for or against impeachment. It will just happen.

[Vidar]

37. I'm with you, Zhade.

[jpwhite]

38. no need to impeach

There is no reason to pursue an impeachment. What we need to do as Democrats is to investigate where the money was spent in Iraq. I am currently in the military and I can tell you that Haliburton and KBR are overpaying their people. Some of these civilians that are over here are making over 100,000 dollars. They aren't working as hard as I am. Why should they make 3 times as much? This is riduculous.

The main thing that we should be doing with this money is giving it to the Iraqi government so they can pay their army and police more. We have got to get these guys trained so they can take full responsibility for making Iraq a safe and secure country. The quicker they can get the job done, the quicker we (the soldiers) can leave.

All of the name calling and calls for impeachment are not going to fix the problems in Iraq. People are still upset for the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton, and that is understandable. Let's be more mature than them and not do the same thing that they did. We must set an agenda (raising the minumum wage, ending payments to oil companies, fixing the prescription drug program, etc.) and make America a better country. Leaders don't have time to complain, they go out and get things done. That way in 2008 we can show America that a Democrat should be in the White House.

James
[e-mail]

[Zhade]

46. Name calling?

Yeah, um, right.

If the investigations lead to the need for impeachment - and they will, the b*s* administration's crimes are well-known and backed up with a lot of evidence - then our duty is to go through with it.

Don't like it? Tough. We're not going to ignore our conscience.

(And maybe stop repeating rightwing talking-points as a newbie, it makes you look suspicious.)

[Barack_America]

49. Who is this "we"? Is it an army? Are you going to revolt?

Can we please talk one-on-one, rationally? Why are you always speaking for this faceless mass of people?

Can you please describe for me why impeachment of Bush at this time is a RATIONAL choice? Please don't give me your "black and white", "right and wrong" answers, the world doesn't work that way.

We all know he's a bastard, we all know what he's done. Please describe for me how driving the Democratic party into the ground with a failed impeachment somehow rights these wrongs.

[LoZoccolo]

54. *snort*

"Why are you always speaking for this faceless mass of people?"

Because it's the Internet, and no one knows they're not really there!

It's like fantasy football, but with politics. It would be harmless, except for that it saps up time that could be used in ways that could change things, amongst the limited number of people who are aware of politics in this country. That's the regrettable part.

[ACK]

39. Against investigations into the conduct or war - No but we need the provable evidence

That is what an investigation into the conduct of war will give us. Until we have tomes of provable evidence we look like vengeful dicks going for impeachment immediately.

[Zhade]

47. Huh. I recall lots of evidence.

I mean, it's not like you can't Google it.

In many cases, it's already been collected - see Waxman's work on the lies about Iraq, for example.

And again, I accounted for investigations as the FIRST step in my OP. Some of these responses make me think people only read the title.

[knight_of_the_star]

70. We need to prove it to the American people

The case might be tried in the jury of the Senate, but we need to convict the defendants in the court of public opinion first. To do that we need incontrovertible evidence backed by supeonas and Congressional investigations. We need our case to be IRON-CLAD for this to fly, because it is highly doubtful the Senate will convict at all. To go for impeachment before making sure the case is airtight is akin to demanding a conviction for murder when you still don't have the murder weapon.

[Zhade]

75. I'm down with that.

I've been getting a pretty "don't go after them, even if investigations show criminality, we must move on" cowardice here, so I'm a bit trigger-happy.

Investigate, then impeach (because we both know the evidence will be found by the likes of Conyers and Waxman)!

[bluedawg12]

52. As the war is still going on

and lives and money are being spent, an investigation into pre-war intelligence and post-war planning is important.

Equally as important is being honest about the current violence- the civil war currently raging.

Fareed Zacharia wrote a good piece about this in Newsweek last week. The violence is between sectarian factions vying for post-occupation power. U.S. troops are caught in the middle.
It is no longer for our troops to end this- it is up to the participants to sort out their power struggle.

[Ibleedgreen]

53. Use some savvy

What makes you so sure that investigations will lead to impeachment? There is no telling much or little will be uncovered. To say outright that the intentions of our investigation is to impeach would be stupid, it just make us look spiteful. Hence why Pelosi saying impeachment is the table is the right move. But anyone with common sense knows that it isn't really off table

[knight_of_the_star]

58. Listen carefully

We SHOULD investigate EVERYTHING.

We should NOT impeach.

By investigating but not impeaching, we elevate ourselves above the GOP.

We will also have a punching bag to whale away on for two years that isn't going anywhere. By investigating and digging for two years, then we destroy the GOP at the ballot box in '08 then in the criminal courts once the bastards are out of office.

[EFerrari]

61. No sitting president will allow a former president to be tried

in a criminal court.

Time it however you want. This man will be impeached. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[knight_of_the_star]

69. Really?

Has there been any former president who has committed the same crimes this one has? The only thing a sitting president can do to stop such a prosecution is pardon the SOB, and I don't think any Dems will if the indictment is handed down by a Grand Jury.

Precedent is all well and good, but this guy won't escape the docket.

So what do you plan on doing if we impeach but FAIL to convict? We won't get the votes between now and 2008 to do so, not with how the Senate is right now. What kind of message does that send if we can't convict his ass? He's out in two years, we have to fix this country and make damn sure the GOP doesn't get this much power again by marginalizing them. If we go for Bush and try to impeach, we will be biting off more than we can chew.

[EFerrari]

72. Wait a minute -- weren't Democrats elected to clean up Washington?

:)

[Zhade]

64. So if evidence shows high crimes and misdemeanors...

...we let them get away with them?

No. Again, no.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

73. Personal attacks will get you nowhere.

NT!

[The Magistrate]

66. Investigation Is Essential, Sir

Investigation may create an environment wherein impeachment is a reasonable course. But crying up impeachment from the start will do no good, and may do some harm. Impeachment is a political act in its essence, not a criminal court proceeding. There is long term danger for the Republic in establishing it as a thing of frequency bordering on routine that whenever the Congress is in the hands of a different Party than the Executive, the former sets about to impeach the latter.

Properly conducted, investigations into the genuine criminality of this regime may well create a political climate in which people are willing, even eager, to see impeachment proceed, and the establishment of genuine wrong-doing may serve to mark the deed as an exception, rather than a precedent to be repeated whenever the votes might be had.

[Zhade]

74. So, it's fair to say most DUers, and most Dems, favor investigations...

...into the b*s* administration's crimes, yes?

If we agree on that - what is the process once the investigations yield evidential fruit? The Constitution says "impeachment".

(And I refer you to H20Man's excellent "On Impeachment" essay in GD, wherein he disabuses the myth that impeachment has ever been a political club, with the sole exception of the meritless Clinton impeachment proceedings.)

[lillilbigone]

77. Good segment on impeachment on Democracy Now! today...

with Elizabeth Holtzman and Daniel Ellsberg. Check it out. It was nice to hear some articulate advocates of impeachment who were able to make their points without the need for hyperventilating rhetoric or counter-productive attacks against those in Congress who must work within the constraints of law and reality.

[lefthandedskyhook]

71. Give it time

Investigate first. Corruption will be exposed. If the Senate dynamic changes enough, impeachment could then be viable. Right now it would do more harm than good.