Let the People go back to sleep - Impeachment off the table

[BridgeTheGap]

They lied, they cheated, they stole and they murdered. They called us un-patriotic, terrorist sympathizers and worse. And now you want to "play nice" with these people!?!
It's not good enough that we won Congress back. These bastards must be held accountable for what they've done. Doing so in an effective manner could set the G.O.P. back decades. And, yes, we need a vision for where we want to take the country. Both these things can happen. Don't let the American people who have woken up go back to sleep with "we've got Congress now and un-like the bastards still in the Executive Branch, we're going to play nice." Fuck that! Subpoena the hell out them and hold them accountable for what they've done!
___________________________________________________________________________________________
It's official, John Conyers (D,MI) who will head the House Judiciary Committee, says that impeachment is "off the table". He does, however, plan to investigate the Bush administration and will advocate election reform.

In the impeachment process, the House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to bring a formal impeachment query to a House vote and conducts investigations if the query is approved. Therefore, the position of the House Judiciary Committee Chair is a very important part of this process.

Link:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2006111...

[mtnsnake]

1. "Fuck that" is right!

I can't believe we're being duped again by the repukes, especially now that we've got the power.

[niceypoo]

4. The GOP remind me of Arnolds jeckyl and hyde wife in Total recall

"Consider that a divorce"

[Iwasthere]

6. And too many feel it should be off the table

Most of them say it would take too much time and energy. So f%$#in what!! Multi-task. Perhaps they could meet on Modays and Fridays too.

[elocs]

80. Why put the cart before the horse?

Why not let oversight hearings and investigations put impeachment on the table itself? Then Bush could be impeached, not convicted, and everybody would feel better that he would have been held accountable.

[In Truth We Trust]

2. Fuck that! Impeach!

[Avalux]

3. Yes, they did lie, cheat and steal.

There will be investigations, and once the horrible truths are revealed, impeachment may occur. Let's not jump the gun because they're not screaming impeachment. We have to be smart and more than anything else - investigate to get the required evidence needed to hold the weasels accountable.

[sharp_stick]

5. I think of impeachment as a way to let the GOP get back into it

There is no way, none, that we could ever actually get chimpy out of government. We don't have the votes in the Senate to convict. The hardcore repukes left in there wouldn't vote to impeach the prick if we had video of him feeding puppies into a woodchipper.

This would be a great way for them to play victim again and as I'm sure you know, nobody plays the victim like the rightwingers. Just look at the neverending "war on christmas" and "war on christianity" shit spewed by people like o'reilly and limpballs.

By investigating this administration day and night we can improve our standing. Maybe if the investigations turn up something impeachment could be brought back but I don't see us getting anywhere with it right now.

[stillcool]

9. education and information...

regarding what this administration (and previous ones) have done, needs to be wide-spread and easily digested. When that is accomplished, impeachment will be way too lenient of an option. This time, there needs to be an investigation that is something other than a white-wash. I don't know how that can be accomplished, but it's necessary if we are going to retain a form of democracy.

[Iwasthere]

10. "Maybe if they turn up something" ???

Have you been under a rock? Turn up something they will!! And a video of chimpy feeding puppies into a wood chipper, don't give him ideas.. He loves to kill, always has all the back to when he was a young child (demented SOB).

[elocs]

81. I agree totally.

Oversight and investigations will bring accountability to the Bush administration. Then impeachment will bring itself back with overwhelming support by the American public. Make the next 2 years about all-impeachment, all-the-time, then look forward to losses in 2008. There is a place and time for impeachment, but it should not be the first thing out of the box. Build up to it and make the iron clad case for it instead of making it appear simply as revenge and payback.

[Barack_America]

7. Hey, you could have linked my post instead of stealing it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2955071

Bad form.

[BridgeTheGap]

12. okay

you can have it back now!

[FREEWILL56]

8. Personally I'd like to send them on a trip.

Straight into a court for treason against the United States. And right after that they get the grand prize by going to The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[Imperialism Inc.]

11. Who said anything about playing nice?

The hearings in to the corruption and pre-war intel will be anything but nice.

[tigereye]

13. don't fret

I'm sure there will be some "unpleasantness" and lots of hearings. Husband says impeach next year, right before the election! :evilgrin:

You just have to remember, also, we ARE nicer than them.

[partylessinOhio]

14. Conyers sold out - time to dump him too. All smoke and no fire!

[Barack_America]

15. Dump Conyers?? All smoke and no fire?!?! Bwahahahhaha...

That's hilarious! Conyers, possibly the most old-school Democrat in Congress? Conyers, the untiring civil rights activist and one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus?

Oh boy, that's rich...

[mtnsnake]

16. Laugh all you want, but partylessinOhio is absolutely right

If Conyers has been pushing for impeachment all along, and all of a sudden he does a huge about face after we have the power to do something about it, then he IS all smoke.

[Barack_America]

17. Just because somebody is RATIONAL..

and acts RATIONALLY does not mean that their beliefs have changed or that they are all full of smoke.

Please come over to the real world so we can debate here for a while. I seriously hope that you understand that there is more than one issue in this world and that sometimes you have to restrain your actions in one issue so that you can address others.

If you seriously think that the only thing that Americans care about is going after Bush, you are delusional. It might be the only thing YOU care about, but our government isn't there to represent YOU, it's there to represent all of us. No offense, but please get a clue.

[mtnsnake]

20. You act like you know everything about me, but

you're just like most other know-it-alls who really don't know it all about everything.

If you think that this is all I care about, then I'm not the one who is "delusional", but thanks for trying.

[Barack_America]

24. I actually know very little in general and nothing about you...

And I'll be the first to admit it. But one thing that I am pretty sure about is that impeachment now is a pretty bad idea.

I don't think you understand how much common ground we have. I think that Bush is an absolute crook (I actually can't write what I really think of him, but it might make you blush). I would L-O-V-E to see his ass removed from the Presidency in disgrace. But this isn't my government, it works for everyone and there are people out there who NEED to see parts of the Democratic agenda passed. For some of them (ie people unable to afford their prescription meds) this could be a matter of life or death. Now, knowing that, why should I support impeaching Bush right now, knowing that it has very little chance of working and will delay getting help for those people? Tell me how choosing impeachment over that is a RATIONAL decision? If you think that it is rational, that's where our common ground ceases to exist.

Please don't think that I'm not calling for investigations, because that's not the case. I don't want a witchhunt, but I do demand purposeful, thorough and intelligent investigations.

[partylessinOhio]

35. What would be the point of "purposeful, thorough and intelligent investigations"

if Pelosi and Conyers have already "taken impeachment OFF the table?"

This is NOT a dictatorship and Pelosi, Conyers or anyone else cannot make an edict that we should all bow down to in agreement like sheep.

Our Congress can do two things or many more at one time. Legislation like prescription drugs can be written and passed while impeachment proceeds.

Conyers is in his seventies. Perhaps he cannot give this fight his full strength as he has done in the past. It may be time for him to step aside and let a younger person get this task down for the electorate.

Americans voted Democrats in so they would hold this criminal impostor accountable for his crimes against the Constitution.

You do not begin a criminal investigation by first stating that even if guilty we will not bring charges. That is insanity.

[Barack_America]

42. No. Americans voted in Democrats to change policy in Iraq...

...and to end the war. You may have voted for Democrats to impeach Bush, but that's NOT what the majority of Americans voted for.

In Wisconsin, which elected a Democratic Senator with a 67% majority, voters got the chance to vote for commencement of impeachment hearings, they voted NO.

http://www.marshfieldnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061108/MNH0101/611080721

Don't let the strength of your own views cloud your sense of what the people as a whole want.

Conyers believes in impeachment more than you do, but he realizes that he's not elected to push HIS beliefs, he's there for his constituents. His decision to put impeachment off the table is in large part because he believes thats what his consituents want AND whats best for them. That's the job of a legislator.

[onenote]

22. try living in the real world

John Conyers was re-elected with 85 percent of the vote in his district. You and what army is going to "dump him"? Do you really think that you have a better sense of what the majority of his constituents believe is important than he does? If so, then I invite you to announce your candidacy for his seat, right here on DU.

[mtnsnake]

27. Practice what you preach

Whe the hell do you think he got re-elected by such a margin? Maybe it's because his constituents have listened to all his talk about impeachment all along. Wake up.

[onenote]

29. So you do think you understand his constituents better than he does

You should announce your candidacy. We're waiting.

[mtnsnake]

31. Few have done more for the cause of impeachment than Conyers and

that's why it's very troubling to learn here that he's made it official that impeachment is off the table, according to the people who have posted that.

[Barack_America]

34. John Conyers is PRO-IMPEACHMENT!

But:

1). He wants to be Judiciary Chair and Nancy Pelosi is making him get with party line and announce that he won't pursue it at this time before she'll give it to him.

2). He understands that there's not a lot of support for it right now and that it will probably hurt Dem chances to keep control in 2008 and he wants to stay Judiciary Chair.


This is what I've been saying about politics, your BELIEFS are yours and nobody gets to change them without your consent, but your ACTIONS often must be tempered by the environment you find yourself in.

John Conyers is pro-impeachment, he just realizes that there is more to lose than to gain by pursuing it at this time!

[partylessinOhio]

36. If this is true:

'Nancy Pelosi is making him get with party line and announce that he won't pursue it at this time before she'll give it to him." - then Pelosi is not the person for the job of Speaker of the House. F! her!

It's the people's House not hers!

[mtnsnake]

56. NO KIDDING! You're the ONLY one who doesn't realize that I know that.

Look, I and others have already tried explaining to you that the ONLY thing I said negatively about Conyers is that I agreed with another poster that he is all smoke IF he backs away from impeachment.

Please stop wasting my time with this crap where you're trying to paint a picture that I hate Conyers or something, and that I said stuff I never said. I never called for his removal, nor did I say or imply anything remotely close to that. You got the wrong party.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[partylessinOhio]

37. I know what Conyers has done and I was a supporter until I heard that

he is bowing to Pelosi and her wacky statement - "impeachment is off the table!"

If merited, we must impeach.

Pelosi should get the facts first and then let the members decide later.

Pelosi is bassackwards!

[Zodiak]

39. If you do not want to go below the belt, then don't

mtnsnake has been here a while; the accusation is unfounded.

Ignorance of the source of Conyers' support is not ignorance of Conyers in general or elements of his history. No one should be accused of being a troll because of that.

Conyers rocks, but his change in rhetoric after the elections has some people legitimately concerned. I hope he is playing rope-a-dope, but I have no proof of that.

[Barack_America]

43. I have a hard time believing that someone...

...who is truly Pro Dem can honestly call for Conyers removal because he is playing smart politics.

At best it is short-sighted...

[mtnsnake]

46. That's the second time you've suggested that

I'm a troll. If you're TRULY concerned that I'm a troll, you need to contact Skinner and have him consider booting my ass off the forum. He might boot my ass off someday, like for telling dipshits like you that you're a borderline neurotic idiot, but it won't EVER be for being a troll.

[Barack_America]

53. Nice language...

I didn't call you a troll there.

I don't appreciate you calling me names, I'm just trying to have a debate with you. I do agree that you ruffled my feathers there a bit when I thought you were going after Conyers (are you? I still don't know). I apologized for my reaction. I DO think that if you are going after Conyers that you are being short-sighted and maybe a little naive about how politics works. That's all.

[Zodiak]

47. Different person

the one calling for Conyers removal was not mtnsnake, who only agreed with the "all smoke" statement.

And now mtnsnake is angry and debate is impossible. That is why accusing another of being a troll is against the rules and frankly, counterproductive.

[mtnsnake]

52. Thank you again

All too many times I've found myself in a similar position as you, where I've taken the time to step in and clarify someone when they've totally accused another party wrongfully or when they've totally misinterpreted some other poster. Let me just say I appreciate what you've done by stepping in here on my behalf!

[Zodiak]

57. No problem

I am a pollyanna who puts his big nose in other people's business.

I can't help myself sometimes.

;-)

[Barack_America]

54. No. He explicitly asked for him to "step aside"...

...If he was no longer interested in going after impeachment. Denying him the Chairmanship is pretty close to "removal".

I just don't see the point of asking someone who is your best champion on 9 out of 10 issues to "step aside" for someone who is your best champion on 1 out 10.

Doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's just where mtnsnake and I disagree. I say "impeachment, but not at the expense of our agenda" and he says "impeachment, no matter what". That seems to me to be the essence of our debate.

[Barack_America]

58. Please note that I noticed that I HAD replied to the wrong person.

And have apologized to mtnsnake. My posts should have been directed to partylessinOhio who suggested that Conyers should be "removed" and should "step-aside". I was wrong to not double-check before I posted.

[mtnsnake]

62. Thank you for admitting your mistaking of partylessinOhio for me

It sucks to be wrongfully accused.

Apology accepted.

[mtnsnake]

61. Please make it clear that the "He" you're talking about is not me & is someone else

It looks that way, just by nature of where the post is situated.

[Barack_America]

63. I actually was posting to Zodiac there...

...considering that he had also jumped in to let me know that I got the wrong person. My apology to you is down there somewhere.

[mtnsnake]

67. Yeah but

In that post, post #54, the "He" in "He explicitly asked for him to "step aside..." still appears as if you mean me, even though I know now that you made a mistake and mean the other poster. For sake of clarity, I'd appreciate it if you would edit that post and change "He" in your subject line to "partylessinOhio" if that is indeed the poster you meant. thank you

[Barack_America]

69. Oh yeah, that "he" was directed at you...

I started going through the posts and realized my mistake after I had posted that one. Sorry again.

[mtnsnake]

70. Whoa. You just said it wasn't directed at me and now you're saying it was?

Show me where I "asked for him to step aside"if that "he" was directed at me. I never asked Conyers to step aside or anything close to that, so if you realize you're mistake, how can that "he" be directed at me? This is really confusing.

[Barack_America]

71. Oh boy. Let me explain...

When I wrote it, I thought it was directed at you. Immediately after I posted that message I started going through the posts and realized that I had gotten mixed up. I posted a second apology under my post to Zodiac so that he would know that I had realized my mistake.

So I posted it about you, before I didn't post it about you.
(christ, I sound like that Kerry soundbite ;-) )

[mtnsnake]

48. Thank you, Zodiak,

very much for that, and thank you for the clarity about Conyers. Conyers has been something of a hero of mine, and I can only say that I'm disappointed in this latest turn of events, re: impeachment.

As far as that that post that Kristi1696 made, let's just say I realize that there are more than a few people who have comprehension problems around here. I also know that the ones who go running around accusing people of being something they're not are usually the ones with the biggest skeletons in their closets.

[onenote]

82. in defense of kristi1696

I think Kristi1696 has done the right thing by apologizing for accusing you of wanting Conyers removed. However, I think you also owe her an apology. After all, partylessinohio posted that Conyers should be dumped, kristi1696 response pointed out what a silly idea that was, and you challenged kristi1696 stating "laugh all you want but partylessinohiho is exactly right". I don't see how you can criticize kristi1696 for her alleged "comprehension problems" when your post certainly was quite amenable to an interpretation that you supported everything that partylessinohio said, including the call to "dump" Conyers.

[mtnsnake]

44. WTF? I love John Conyers. Who the hell do you think your posting that shit to?

Conyers is one of my favorite Dems of all time, so don't go slobbering off with that 90 mph tongue of yours with your utter nonsense that you just posted about me in a feeble attempt at making it look like I think Conyers is a fucking asshole or something. The worst thing I have ever said about Conyers is that I agreed with another poster that he is all smoke if he backs off impeachment. Other than that, Conyers has been my biggest enabler in the past when it comes to the idea of impeachment. In one post you're putting words into my mouth, then in another you admit you know little about me, then in another you do another complete reversal and totally massacre what I said with a long drawn-out bunch of garbage designed to make it look like I hate Conyers. How many personalities do you have?? Jesus h Christ.

[Barack_America]

49. When you say that Conyers should be removed...

...Just because he says that he does not support impeachment AT THIS TIME, leads me only to the conclusion that you have no idea who he is or who he stands for.

The truth, I guess, is that you are short-sighted and are willing to forget decades of service and commitment because he doesn't agree with your plan of action on this one issue. Would you really have somebody other than Conyers as Chair of the Judiciary just because of this? Is there somebody who you think would do a better job overall, or do you think that somebody who agrees with you on this one issue is more important than the best overall person?

I apologize for seeing short-sightedness as malevolence. That was my bad and I apologize.

[mtnsnake]

50. I NEVER said Conyers should be removed. YOU GOT THE WRONG PERSON!!

I don't know if ANYONE here even said Conyers should be removed, but if someone did, it sure wasn't as hell me. No where did I come CLOSE to saying that or implying that. You are unreal.

[Barack_America]

55. You are right. I got the wrong person.

My posts have been intended for partylessinOhio. I just went through all of the posts and realized that I got you confused with partylessinOhio somewhere back around Post #35. I honestly apologize. Sometimes these boards move a little fast for me, but I should have double checked that I was posting to the right person.

[Zodiak]

59. s'ok

we are all passionate and charged up.

[Barack_America]

60. What can I say, Michigan Dems are a soft spot for me...

<--------- ...for obvious reasons.

Damn it gets confusing when people jump in and out of debates, especially when the debates are happening on mulitple threads!

[Zodiak]

64. my bad

I know I'm a busybody at times.

In my own defense, all I can say is that I put someone on ignore yesterday for acting like they were the only person who knows anything about politics, calling people names, and writing in all caps. I asked for a little respect, got more ridicule, then had to put him on ignore. I guess I am trying to not let that happen to other people when it can be helped. But I am a big buttinski and admit it.

And I appreciate your passion for Conyers! He is one of our best and I am more inclined to trust him than Pelosi (whom I somewhat trust).

[beaconess]

23. DUers sitting at the computers pontificating about politics know SO much

more about what should be done and how to do it than amateurs like John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, etc. and have every right to bang on their keyboards demanding these political know-nothings do exactly what they demand!

:sarcasm:

[Zodiak]

51. I disagree with your sentiment.

DUers don't live in the beltway, which is well-agreed to not represent a good perception of reality in itself. DUers understand the people they have to live with every day. They offer a perspective that might not be the way things have worked, but there is no poroof whatsoever that their collective ideas will not work because most have never been tested.

But what really concerns me is twofold: First the entreaty that our leaders know so much more than us is a sentiment not shared by many on this board. How many times have DUers had to make an elected offical aware of something that they simply did not know or spot a provision in an upcoming bill that the rep hasn't even read? Non-authoritarians do not assume the leaders are superhuman, and most on this board are non-authoritarians.

Lastly, I still do not understand the behavior of going to a message board to yell at people who are on a message board for being on a message board. It is akin to a pointless, tautological argument.

[beaconess]

73. John Conyers does not need to be lectured by anyone about the feasibility of launching impeachmen

proceedings against Bush or how he should go about doing his job as Judiciary Committee Chairman.

I agree that there are occasions when outside observers can help elected officials. But there's probably no one in the country who knows more about this issue or is as attuned to the pros and cons as John Conyers. The pissed off ranting at him because he's not following the advice of some DUers, many of whom don't have one iota of a percent as much political experience, savvy, knowledge and guts as Conyers is laughable.

[Zodiak]

74. Then laugh

Scorn makes poor rhetoric if you wish to change minds.

People are nervous. One of the biggest champions of impeachment has rhetorically backpedaled (actions may be different, but that takes trust). This ranting is expected because Dems are not known for their inherent trust of their reps. They just want him to be good on his word.

[Barack_America]

76. See, that's the thing. I TRUST Conyers...

...and I trust him to do the right thing for the Dems and the country. His taking impeachment off the table only strengthens my belief that impeachment is not the right thing right now. I was hoping that letting everyone know of Conyers position (by the way, the bottom half of the OP is one of my threads just copied and pasted) would also help encourage them to realize that impeachment might not be the best course of action. I figured that it people didn't trust Conyers, then who the hell would they trust? That's why I got so defensive when people refused to rethink their position and just started going after Conyers instead.

[Zodiak]

78. Trust is a big word for me

and I am sure it is for many others, as well. That is a matter of personal choice.

Do I trust Conyers? Yes, but I understand that many do not because the Democrats have been very lax in earning trust in the last 6 years. We need to win them over and gain that trust. That takes reasonable debate coupled with the actions of the rep who is asking for that trust. (votes and trust are different things, after all).

If impeachment is seen as a process, then it is a worthy goal. The first step of that goal is hearings. Both the hearings now! crowd and the impeachment now! crowd are on the same page; both desire justice.

The only bad course of action would be to not pursue hearings. That strategy garuntees that no leverage will be gained over Bush, and our agenda will not go through because of the veto. Thank God the Democrats have already indicated that they will have hearings. That is the imeachment ball getting rolling, regardless of what name we call it.

[LynneSin]

65. Oh pul-lease - can you get any more clueless

Before we can impeach we have to investigate

That's what we're doing, investigating. Trust me - when we expose the truth we'll see an impeachment

[windbreeze]

18. When do our recently elected...actually get to Take OFFICE????

JANUARY...right??? How long is that??? how many hours????days, weeks....in respect to how long it took for 9/11 to happen ie: 2-3 hours???? get what I'm saying here??? The other side has free reign for two months to do whatever it deems necessary for it's own self to survive...and I, for one, put NOTHING past them...

What the hell would be wrong with misleading the other side for those couple months...???? We can't impeach w/o an investigation...damn it...and he promises investigation...don't you think that feels like a serious threat to the other side???? don't you think that IF we find what we already suspect we will find...that the only result can/will be...impeachment?????.....right now, WE ARE NOT in position to do anything...WE NEED to shut the hell UP about this...and quietly let our leaders KNOW how we feel....and at the same time, remind them, that IF they don't listen to us...THEY CAN be replaced...
windbreeze

[dflprincess]

19. They didn't say investigations were off the table

Impeachment may appear again depending on where other hearings lead. As much as I want to see Bush and Cheney out, I've begun to think this is probably a smart move. The public will welcome investigations - particularily of war profiteering, but to going in saying we're going to impeach would look too much like strictly a revenge thing. If the investigations lead to impeachment (or better, indictments) I think the public would welcome it then.

We need to tread a bit carefully if we want this majority to last more than two years.

[Barack_America]

21. These people don't understand "tread carefully"

They don't understand acting in the best interests of the Democratic party or the American people. They only understand black-and-white and right-or-wrong. In their eyes, Bush and co. have done wrong and must be impeached irregardless of the probability of success or the damage the process may cause.

That pretty much sums up what I understand of their position.

[Zodiak]

32. I'll take a stab here.

Characterizing your polticial allies that have a differing opinion that you as black-and-white thinkers is a bit presumptuous. As I understand it, this once again boils down to party vs. principles, which have thoughtful adherents on both sides. Those that are on the other side from you are very aware of what the likely outcome of the impeachment hearing would be. They are not ignorant. They just do not fear the consequences should it go badly and have faith in the American people to respect fighters. Their hypothesis has yet to be tested.

Those are your opponents. They are not people in a coccoon of unreality, or childish, or completely ignorant of how things have worked in the past. Please do not let the argument turn into a name-calling match. That goes for both sides.

Now to get to your argument about what is good for the Democratic party and the American people. That is the real question, and a good one to bring up.

So what kind of legislation can we pass? Can we undo the tax cuts, the precription drug donut hole, the NCLBA, the torture bill, the bankruptcy bill? Can we get health care reform? The answer to that question in today's poltical climate is a resounding "no". All legislation has to get by Bush's desk, and he has indicated (independent of his words) that he intends to play hardball and get his agenda passed (which also means blocking our agenda). He has no desire to leave Iraq or really change strategy. He will obstruct for two years and make his media hounds call this a "do nothing" Congress.

And people will die. Many of them.

How do we get Bush to play ball? How can we get him to sign legislation? There are two ways to do it.

1. Make the legislation palatable to Bush, which means that the American people lose.
2. Make Bush afraid to use the veto.

I think that #2 is better for the Democratic party and better for the American people (who are looking to the Democratic party to get something done and stand up to Bush). The only way to do that is to make him fear impeachment, make him fear the next revelation of his crimes. We need to get investigations into everything now, and we need to block his attempts to push through dictatorship before January by any means necessary. By the time 6 months of next year are done, Bush will be humiliated and signing everything we give him just to keep his ass out of jail.

When he steps down from office in 2008, we turn over the evidence from the investigations to the authorities, and he is arrested not as a President, but as a citizen. It is much easier to get justice that way, and the process is taken out of politics and half out of the hand of the Republican party. Meanwhile, all of the evidence from the hearings may be enough to damn prominent Republicans, as well (like, for example, Presidential hopeful John McCain).

[dflprincess]

75. I hope nothing I said implied I thought those calling for

immediate impeachment are childish or ignorant because, believe me, I understand where they're coming from and personally, would love to see impeachment right away. My point was - and it's probably because I've been around for so long that I've become a hack - that I can see why the Democratic leadership is moving carefully in this regard. I think your argument above about point #2 is excellent and your last paragraph is exactly right.

I said in another post yesterday that I will be angry if the neocons get by with what they've done this time. If they do, they'll just come back with worse at their earliest opportunity. They've been getting by with murder (literally and figuratively) since JFK was killed with no one but an occasional lackey (like Ollie North) taking a fall. This time the wheels have to be brought down and if it takes two or three years to do it, I can live with that (though it will be hard), just so it happens eventually.

[Zodiak]

77. My response was for the post in reply to yours

All told, I do not think that the "impeachment now" crowd and the "hearings now" crowd are different at all. Both want justice and should realize they are on the same page.

There is a lot of name-calling between these crowds that I think is unneccesary and it is shutting down debate. Not productive.

The true outlier crowd I see are the ones who do not even want to pursue hearings in favor of a legislative agenda and "bipartisanship". I think their strategy will run into the brick wall of Bush's veto and they are ignoring an awful lot of death, many of which were innocent Americans.

[Barack_America]

84. Actually Zodiak, we agree entirely...

I've been pressing for the "investigations, not impeachment" cause for days now. Please forgive my venting a little frustration about my "opponents" (although I don't like to call them that, considering our views are really very close). However, I have several people tell me that they demand impeachment even if it means that the Dems lose the 2008 Pres. election and get booted from Congress. They say that it is the Dems job to impeach and that politics has no role in this decision. THAT is are the people I'm referring to when I say "black-and-white", "right and wrong". That's the view that I have a little trouble understanding.

However, you're right that I need to stick to arguing the ideas on a particular post rather than bringing in sentiment from other posts.

[partylessinOhio]

40. "Impeachment off the table" is a FINAL statement. It says that no matter

what an investigation may discover - "I, Nancy Pelosi, will not impeach, but just move on and I can sit in the Speaker's chair in all my glory."

[groovedaddy]

25. This is an opportunity

and it does require risk. Could it backfire? Sure, it could but I doubt it. Much investigation has already taken place and has reaveled so much.
The opportunity here is to expose the G.O.P. for what they are. Way too many Americans don't realize who they're voting for. The glare of Congressional lights can expose this.
I don't think it has to start with Impeachment but it should be clear that investigating, exposing and HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE is the responsible thing to do and the worth the strategic risk.

[savemefromdumbya]

26. Off the table means in the cupboard for now

it has not been thrown out indefinitely?

[Zodiak]

33. Actually I'm not sure anyone knows exactly what they mean

It could mean that, or it could mean no impeachment...period.

I know that "tabling" an issue means putting it aside for later in parliamentary jargon. If it is ""off the table", that could very well mean it will not be considered later. But that is only my interpretation of the words. I hope that I am wrong.

[partylessinOhio]

41. I interpret "off the table" means impeachment is dead, PERIOD!

Someone should ask both Pelosi and Conyers to explain what their identical statements mean in explicit, plain English.

[LynneSin]

68. So in your home all the cupboards are completely empty?

I take plenty of things off my table, but if I need them, I know what cupboard or closet that they are located.

Stop putting the damn horse before the cart. We need an investigation, we need to expose the truth and when that happens we'll remember where we stashed our 'impeachment'

[Zodiak]

72. If I may interject

can we stick "coerce Bush into signing our legislation" somewhere between those investigations and the impeachment?

No sense in having his belligerent ass slow us up for two years and come back with the excuse that Democrats are resposible for gridlock. That's one of their favorite plays. coerce him with evidence of his own crimes.

The hearings are necessary for leverage. Those cannot even be tabled, much less taken off of the table.

Those good thing is....the Dems are going right after the investigations from what I have been reading. I think they know our agenda depends on it.

[BridgeTheGap]

28. Let it begin...read on!

New Senate, New Probe Into Pre-War Intel
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 10 November 2006

With the Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress, the new majority leadership is ready to start wielding their power by revisiting a hot-button issue that Republicans never provided answers to.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111006J.shtml

[Barack_America]

45. No Conspiracy Theorist Bloggers, please...

Leftist spin is almost as bad as FauxNews.

Read that article critically. Of course, the new chairs are going to hold hearings, but I doubt that they are going to "haul" anybody anywhere and the rest of this is just this guy's opinion. There was one statement that there will be hearings (not a shocker), that this might be the beginnings of impeachment or some sort of revolution is just this guy's spin.

[groovedaddy]

79. What's wrong with conspiracy theories (except when they're wrong?)

Surely there's no conspiring going on in the White House? Naw, couldn't be. It's all straight up.

[PVnRT]

38. Christ

Apparently we have to start impeachment hearings RIGHT NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW or you're a sellout. Give me a fucking break.

[LynneSin]

66. Yes and Joe Lieberman will be voting for all Judiciary Nominations

Even if he isn't on the committee

:grr:

[Q]

83. Conyers may be backing off a bit...

...but he and others WILL NOT forget what has happened. I believe these issues will remain active and will come alive again in the context of other investigations.

Remember...the Pentagon has literally 'lost' billions of dollars and thousands of weapons. The Constitution has been shredded and war crimes have been committed.

There is no going back now. If the guilty parties get away with their crimes...the future of America is in doubt and our children will pay for our neglect and laziness.

[BridgeTheGap]

85. Go Henry!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_go_co/democrats_oversight

The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration's running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.

[maryallen]

86. WAR CRIMES cannot be excused or ...

they will occur again... and again...and again.

IMPEACH NOW!!!

[martymar64]

87. Impeachment needs to happen, but lets go one step at a time.

First we need to gather all of the evidence and make sure that the impeachment will stick. That way there can be no doubt that it is needed and not just a witch hunt. After all, we're not Ken Starr.

Nothing is final, if we uncover enough evidence, even Pelosi will change her tune. Just don't let the wishy washy DLCers deter you from the righteous path.

Let the investigations begin!