Impeachment = Deterrent

[BrewAz]

I know there are a lot of threads about impeachment...but, The Democrats HAVE TO START IMPEACHMENT hearings. If not, What is the deterrent? How do you stop the next power hungry, money motivated would be king with political connections next time?

There has to be a deterrent..there has to be consequences...swiftly dealt so our country NEVER GETS INTO SUCH A MESS again.

Am I the one in the ozone here? Thoughts?

BrewAz

[onenote]

1. what sort of deterrent is a failed impeachment process?

If the Democrats start an impeachment process that they cannot see through to fruition, meaning conviction by 2/3 vote in the House, then what is the deterrent effect. I could argue that it would have the opposite effect.

THere should be oversight. In the event (unlikely in my view) that the product of oversight hearings is a bi-partisan consensus, with substantial public support, for impeachment, then the process should move forward. Otherwise, it should not.

[Donkeykick]

7. I Agree With You Onenote.

One must stay focused on 08. ;) Besides, George Bush is his own worst enemy--let him trip over his own two feet.

[Ned_Devine]

2. I agree...

I think these guys are going to play politics w/the media about their plans until they take the field in January. Once they're in, I think people like Conyers and Rangel and the like will look to start soem serious investigations

[FloridaPat]

3. And how about a little justice here? Justice for those that have to

pay $9 trillion for the national debt. Justice for the 655,000 civilians killed in Iraq so our idiot president could call himself a war president. Justice for the 9-11 victums. Justice for all the people who lost their jobs as * sent them overseas as fast as possible. Justice for the civilians in Afghanistan who have been totally screwed over the last 25 years by repubs governing. I could go on. There is absolutely no reason to no impeach the bastards. Our gov't is big enough to go after him and run the country at the same time.

[nam78_two]

5. Very well said

:toast:

[beaconess]

9. You lay out the reasons right in your post . . .

If the Dems spend all their time and energy trying to impeach Bush, they won't be able to address the very problems you detail.

Democrats were put into power to solve problems, not to behave like Republicans.

[nam78_two]

4. I agree-I don't think its a waste of time

:shrug:

[MGD]

6. Impeachment = taken off the table by John Conyers. Take a hint.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Until Forced Back Onto the Table By The Weight of EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE there will be in abundance once the Judiciary Committee can start issuing subpoenas!

[MGD]

10. That's better than charging right out of the gate screaming impeachment but remember,

Bush is only in for 2 more years anyways. That's not enough time for impeachment let alone impeachment and investigations. What's more, Bush is just a tool of our real enemies, we may as well attack a hammer for all the good it will do for our greater cause. We serve ourselves and our cause(s) better by focusing on the plans, ideas, and alliances of the right wing rather than their appointed tools.

[BrewAz]

11. I posted this...

on another thread on impeachment....but also fits for those of you still reading this one.

In the United States we have a Constitution that is pretty explicit about how the government should be set up to administer the will of the voters. We have laws of the land that have been formulated and enacted by the congress.

Part of the process of being a Democracy is ensuring that the 225+ years of history is not trampled on by a "renegade" politician who happens to have power....that is why the Constitution of this land provides for Impeachment...with very specific rules and processes.

Why in the name of Democracy should the Democrats who are trying to put the rule of law back into the politics of Washington ignore the constitution on this matter?

Ignoring this process because of potential fall out in the next political election ...Doesn't that smack of hypocrisy?

Consequently...How can the Dems NOT start hearings on Impeachment?

BrewAz

[MGD]

12. How can the Dems NOT start hearings on Impeachment?

It's called requiring sufficient evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors which reuires investigations. Furthermore, Many Democratic politicians have supported Bush and his plans/actions through their votes. Why did they do that? Because we are a representative democracy and they represented the voters of their particular states/districts. Reversing their positions now would look very bad. Not everyone feels the same way about it as you do. That's the bottom line. Welcome to politics.

[Cleita]

13. Also, there is that little document, The Constitution, that specifically

lays out rules for investigations of officials who have committed treason. I know it's been ignored a lot in the last six years, but maybe it's time to dust it off and start using it as a rule of law again.