If our Dems let Bush get away with murder & don't impeach him, what will you do?

[mtnsnake]

It's January, 2007, and we have the power. We have more than the amount of votes in the House of Representatives needed to impeach the lying fucker.

So...the ball is in the hands of our Democratic leaders.

[mtnsnake]

1. If our Democrat leaders owe us anything, they owe us Bush's impeachment.

[blm]

20. Shouldn't you be harping on your preferred candidate about this?

Everyone should be holding their preferred candidate to account for this.

[Zodiak]

21. Democrat "ic" leaders,you mean n/t

[blm]

26. I'm beginning to see the pattern, too.

Thought I saw it awhile back, but retreated. Now the disconnect is becoming clearer.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. Those are the only two choices? My choice isn't close to either of those.

But, OK, I'll kick it. MKJ

[mtnsnake]

3. There's a 3rd choice for "other". Please explain what it is, though

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. I think I'm thinking impeachment is a foregone conclusion. Maybe a choice like "How could they not

impeach?"

So, if they don't impeach, I'll vote for the third wave of pissed off Democrats. MKJ

[begin_within]

4. If they don't impeach, I'll vote the Green ticket top to bottom in 2008.

[mtnsnake]

5. If Bush isn't impeached, I wouldn't blame anyone for feeling that way.

That's how important the issue of impeachment should be, IMO.

[Vidar]

13. Hear, Hear!

[blm]

30. Push Hillary, spread RW lie about Kerry, AND don't blame anyone for voting Green if

Bush isn't impeached. All in 24 hours. Interesting postings.

[mtnsnake]

32. Thanks for making your jealousy and hatred of Hillary all too obvious

It saves a lot of time.

Now that Kerry, the guy who wanted McCain as his VP in 2004, dropped out of the race, you can concentrate all your efforts to running down the top Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Be my guest, blm. Obama's my favorite of the announced candidates, anyway, and Hillary is used to people using RW tactics to smear her with propaganda. She's battle hardened against the most fearsome of RW enemies, so I highly doubt she's going to be phased by some poster on DU who incessantly tries to paint her and her husband as being in bed with the Bushes. lmao

[blm]

34. Heheh.......the obviousness is all yours.

I am consistent here about IranContra, BCCI CIA drugrunning and how it all links to 9-11 and Iraq and Bush2. I have been for YEARS. I have also been consistent in helping to bat down RW lies against the Clintons, while holding them accountable whenever they have shown support for the Bushes.

I am not the only Democrat who wants the Clintons to STOP rehabbing the Bush legacy.

Take a poll of DU, do they prefer the Clintons be publically supportive of the Bushes and keep their documents classified as Bill did in 1993, or would they prefer the Clintons supported the full diclosure of the Bush family crimes of office.

See if my posts are the aberration you claim them to be.

Octafish appreciation thread for those who also believe in opening the books on the BFEE.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x70682

[ShortnFiery]

56. IMO, that truism deserves to be screamed from the highest rafters!

The Clintons were publically supportive of the Bushes and kept their documents classified in 1993.

No justice with Dynasty. They're all part of one BIG CLUB that George Carlin is correct in claiming that we are not a part of, i.e., non-investor classes need not apply. :(

[Firespirit]

45. I call bullshit.

The "Kerry wanted McCain for VP" is a media lie.

I know John Kerry. I speak with him fairly regularly, believe it or not.

This is a lie, perpetrated by the right-wing, slurped up by the lazy media, and gobbled up by the sheeplike Kerry-haters who will embrace RW smears if it gives them a reason to dislike him.

And you know what else? Many people's problem with Hillary is not "being in bed with the Bushes." It is her and her henchmen's willingness to attack members of the Democratic Party in order to clear the way for her. We consider that dishonorable and unworthy.

Or do those words not compute for you?

[mtnsnake]

48. haha, you ususally do....like whenever you can't back up your erroneous gossip

like accusing Hillary of attacking her own to clear the way for herself. What a feeble attempt at running her down.

I know John Kerry. I speak with him fairly regularly, believe it or not

Do me a favor. Next time the two of you get together for a cappuccino, ask him what on earth he had in mind when he put those feelers out in an attempt to court John McCain for his VP candidate.

[Firespirit]

50. You set a time. Should I put him on speakerphone?

I assure you, I am neither lying nor exaggerating.

[mtnsnake]

52. Put him on whatever you want. It's your nickel.

I assure you, I am neither lying nor exaggerating

Did I say you were?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. Why, after less than 30 days in the majority, are you immediately going to the newest Perot/Nader

alternative?

Who is out there, what Green candidate for president is waiting in the wings?

If there's not even a potential candidate, who has been the representative of the Green platform for the last 2, 4 years, how could the ticket have anyone viable?

They need to get their voice out there pretty soon, instead of peeling off votes from the Dems two months before the election. MKJ

on edit, because, how is it possible NOT to impeach?

[begin_within]

11. Well, I still have 18 months to see what they do.

[beaconess]

9. THAT'll Show 'em!

Kick them out and let the Republicans back in - no better way to show Democrats we mean business!

:sarcasm:

[begin_within]

10. It will - they will lose their power back to the Rs if they don't do the right thing now.

[hippiechick]

8. I want them to lay plain all of his crimes and fubar's ...

.... day in, day out, from the rooftops, in terms even the dumbest freeptard can understand, on any and every channel, so that THE PEOPLE flood their offices with demands for his Impeachment. From there, they can proceed.

That way they will truly be carrying out the will of the people, and cannot be dragged into a "its just payback for Clinton" GOP/media blame game.

[Daylin Byak]

12. You want to know what i'll do

I'll do what I always do, keep supporting the party that is aligned with most of my views, The Democratic Party cause since i'm againist impeachment all this means nothing to me.

[oasis]

14. Democrats in congress don't have a herd mentality.

That being said, I beleive they'll wait for more damning information on Bush to be publicly revealed before making a move.

[JNelson6563]

15. Break out the waders!

It's like a sea of ignorance here in this thread.

If the Dems decide to impeach then there will be nothing else addressed. Health care, the war, education.....all will slip to the wayside to make room for the impeachment circus.

Bush will be gone in two years. For far too long the important items of the Dem agenda have been completely disregarded. We have an excellent opportunity to show the American people what we are all about. I'm so grateful our Dems in Congress have a clearer vision of what needs to be done than the knee-jerk reactionary keyboard commandoes.

Oy.

Julie

[mtnsnake]

16. If you think the people in this thread are ignorant, you've got a lot to learn

It's people like you who believe we should let the murderer go scott free because you don't think our people can walk and chew gum at the same time. FYI, impeaching Bush doesn't mean we can't take care of other important business at hand. That's a myth and a cop-out.

But keep spreading apathy if it makes you feel better!

[JNelson6563]

17. Sometimes I wish the real world were more like DU

now isn't one of those times.

I happened to speak with both of my Senators this weekend, in person. Impeachment was discussed, many points were made but in the end reality is what it is and when truly looking at long-term, big picture, greater good thing, one must act responsibly. I think they are doing the right things.

As to impeachment being some sort of equivalent for Team Bush paying for their crimes against humanity, I do not see it that way. Justice can and should be pursued for as long as it takes just through different means.

Lastly, all of this is not to say that something may not occur that would make impeachment something worth doing. I really believe this Libby trial is going to turn out to be Bush & Cheney's Watergate.

Julie

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. I'll not act childish, remember Clinton's impeachment and the fact that...

Dick Cheney would take over as President, then applaud our party for not being so fucking stupid as to impeach a lame duck President instead of using him like they did in 2006 as the living campaign beating stick that he is.

[blm]

19. COMPLETE DISCONNECT - you push Hillary here and downplay Clinton coverups for BushInc, and now

you post a poll with a demand for impeachment? Knowing full well that YOUR candidate and her husband have and do protect BushInc more than any Democrat has?

That is a total disconnect from your postings for Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

23. Wahhhhhh!! You're just upset because I pointed out how Kerry wanted McCain as his VP

candidate in 2004, but McCain shunned him, thank goodness. How embarrassing that would've been to have a Kerry/McCain ticket, even though it's embarrassing enough just that Kerry floated the idea in front of McCain over and over until McCain finally told the media he wanted no part of running with Kerry on his ticket. lol

But go ahead and change the subject of this thread if you want....just because one of your minions advised you to "get even" with me for posting the Kerry/McCain stuff, hehe. Be my guest, blm. We can talk about it here, too, how Kerry courted McCain for his VP candidate and got turned down by the repuke.

[blm]

25. Knock off the RW lies. I will DEMAND Clinton support investigations and impeachment will you?

.

[mtnsnake]

28. blah blah blah blah

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[blm]

35. Octafish appreciation thread for holding BFEE accountable faithful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x70682

[mtnsnake]

36. Funny how you need to post the same exact link twice in the same thread

and in successive posts, no less.

You are truly a broken record. lol

[blm]

37. oops....i am *SO* sorry for posting that Octafish-antiBFEE thread link.

Didn't mean to offend you.

[mtnsnake]

41. Apology accepted

*yawn*

[Firespirit]

46. Bring it on.

I know John Kerry. I talk to John Kerry. John Kerry did not ask McCain to be his VP in 2004. He did not even float the idea of having anyone other than a Democrat on the ticket! For fuck's sake, how idiotic. It is a right-wing SMEAR picked up by the idiot mainstream media, and fed on by the likes of you.

[mtnsnake]

49. Hey if you know him so well, ask him why he didn't fight back. nt

[Firespirit]

51. That all you have?

Of course, it's not like I should take someone seriously who thinks he wanted McCain as his VP.

Just for the record, did you also buy the right-wing spin that he burned/ripped/urinated on/otherwise desecrated an American flag at a Vietnam rally? Or how about the one that he was a war criminal who raped Vietnamese women?

[mtnsnake]

53. uhh, like what more would I need?

You're not challenging enough to even get excited about. Now run along...

[Firespirit]

55. You're amusing.

Typical armchair warrior, hiding behind your keyboard. Ten to one that you're a guy.

Would you say all this to my face? Or Kerry's, for that matter?

[mtnsnake]

57. Oooooo, boy am I scared.

lol

[Rowdyboy]

22. My choice? Thank them for showing good sense and not wasting time in a

losing effort to impeach him. Then I'll enjoy having Bush as the face of the Republican party for the next two years. I'll particularly enjoy seeing Bush endorse their candidate for 2008 and speak at their convention.

A humiliated and disgraced George Bush in office is a powerful tool for the Democrats and will help us win the 2008 election. It reminds people of how stupid they were to vote Republican. An impeached Bush only serves as a republican martyr and will rally their base. Screw that.

[mtnsnake]

24. "An impeached Bush only serves as a republican martyr and will rally their base"

Yeah, right. Maybe you forgot how an impeached Clinton resulted in two successive terms of George Bush.

[Rowdyboy]

33. Waste as much energy as you like on impeachment....You won't even get

a vote in the house, much less a trial in the senate.

Plus, if you'll remember, the Clinton impeachment WON us house seats in 1998 and Gore WON the presidency in 2000.

[shimmergal]

27. There's no point to impeaching him UNLESS

there are enough votes in the Senate to convict, so that he gets thrown out of office. Even so, we'd better first be damn sure that Cheney's already gone, or that he'll be impeached & convicted at the same time.

As I've said before, impeachment is too good for the Chimp.

[mtnsnake]

29. Conviction would be nice, yes, but there IS a point to just impeaching him

For one thing, it would mean he didn't get off scott free. He would be an impeached president, historically, just like Clinton is. Bush deserves AT LEAST the same fate, considering what he's responsible for. It wasn't for lying about sex; it was for lying us into a major war.

For another thing, even though Clinton was "only" impeached and not convicted, it WAS followed up with 2 terms of George Walker Bush, so I don't think impeaching Clinton did anything to hurt the Republicans.

[pat_k]

39. Impeachment is Defensive. Rescue the Constitution. Stop the bleeding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=160&topic_id=24657&mesg_id=24662

As we lobby for impeachment, we should be to be crystal clear about its purpose

Keep in mind that:

• They are Congress, not the Courts.


• Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.


• Impeachment is defensive; not punitive.
  
  We charge Congress with the duty to defend against threats to the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to remove a threat by removing an official's power to harm. This is the first, and most urgent, priority.
  
  Retribution for violations of U.S. Code and International Law is for the Courts (both here and at the Hague), not Congress.


• Impeachment is bound only by the intentionally vague guidance provided by our Constitution; judicial processes are bound by our substantial body of written law and precedent.
  
  Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and the intent of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.
  
  Members of the House must decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense. The House as a body defines the what steps are necessary or unnecessary to impeach. Senators decide for themselves whether articles of impeachment transmitted from the House merit impeachment, and what standard of proof to apply.


• The interests that an impeachment seeks to balance are very different from the interests that a criminal prosecution seeks to balance.
  
  
  • In a criminal trial, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly:
    1. depriving a citizen of their rights
    2. releasing a guilty individual
    
    When balanced against the sanctity of our civil rights, the risk of releasing a guilty person loses.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting civil rights, a very high standard of proof is applied (beyond reasonable doubt).
  
  
  • In an impeachment, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly
    1. depriving an official of the privilege of power
    2. leaving power in the hands of an official who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing that power
    
    Each Senator must decide for themselves what standard to apply, but when balanced against the sanctity of our Constitution, the risk of mistakenly depriving an official of the privilege of power should lose, particularly when you consider that power is granted to elected officials; it is not a basic civil right.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting the Constitution, a lower standard of proof is required (e.g., probable cause, preponderance of the evidence). When Members of Congress, opinion leaders, or fellow citizens assert that a higher standard applies, we should challenge them whenever possible.
  
  In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have proofs that meet a standard much higher than impeachment calls for.
  
  When we recognize the purpose of impeachment, it becomes crystal clear that. . .
  
  Impeachment has been a moral imperative for years.
  
  Bush and Cheney demonstrate their willful intent to nullify the Constitution when they assert the fascist fantasy of a "unitary authoritarian executive" that can break the law at its whim.
  
  In their attack on the Constitution, Bush and Cheney are blatantly committing grave violations of law that go far beyond impeachable. They have committed crimes that are subject to the penalty of death. Namely, war crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law and the Anti-Terrorism Act (Title 18, Section 844 paragraph e. Bomb Threat -- "mushroom clouds in 45 min").
  
  In addition, they violate the sanctity of our civil rights with their criminal spying operation (Title 50, Section 1805).
  
  From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10"> Rationalizing for Inaction on Impeachment:
  
  
  . . .charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated. They have admitted violating FISA -- and have tried to "defend" it (mutually exclusively) by claiming inherent authority and congressional approval. GOP Senator Specter himself has already scoffed at the defense.
  
  The (formerly) Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies to Gitmo. Behind the Euphemedia smokescreen of tribunal tinkering lies the reality of the decision: Three Years of War Crimes had already been committed. Similarly, the lies about WMD that terrorized the nation into war are already "old news." There is no fig leaf left.

[GreenArrow]

31. should they go the impeachment route

it will be as an alternative to real punishment. The gang's going to get away scot free, folks.

[pat_k]

38. If they don't act by President's Day, up the anti. Recruit primary challengers.

Perhaps force is the only language understood within the beltway. Bush has proven over and over again that he will only respond to force. It is beginning to look like the new Congressional leadership has the same problem.

If the Dems won't act to defend the Constitution as they are sworn to do, perhaps they'll act to defend their political futures.

If they fail to "get it" by President's day, we must up the anti. Threat of a primary challengers who can self-finance, and who knows the meaning of an oath, is the way to do it.

Initially, we need only go after the leadership.

[bluehighways911]

40. I Will Thank Them

I will thank them. Because they are doing their jobs.

Quit wasting time with this nonsense.

You aren't doing squat but whining on a message board.

So quit thinking you are doing something.

We elected Dems to solve all the problems. And do something for America.

Not satisfy the five loons here with no life.

Really. Tell me. What have you done? Write a message with a poll. Wow. That is so substanance. You are much greater then any Dem that has actually been working on issues.

[ellie]

42. I probably

would drop out of watching politics altogether because, in my opinion, not doing anything to bush is tantamount to condoning his behavior. Furthermore, it would just cement the idea in my mind that politics is a game where the big winners are the rich and the corporations and the losers are the American people.

[mtnsnake]

43. Excellent post.

Thank you. I share your sentiments.

[paulk]

44. do we have the votes?

what about the Bluedogs?

[Bassic]

47. They're not going to impeach him.

The presidential election is too close.

[ShortnFiery]

54. Close GITMO now and reclaim the Geneva Conventions for treatment

of ALL PRISONERS! If the Congress does not move on this, in addition to stopping Dear Leader's immanent bombing of Iran, all is lost anyway and I'M DONE WITH THE LOT OF THEM. I will support any Peacemaker opponent in their very next Primary. :grr:



Under the cover of Pentagon secrecy and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress, U.S. troops have pushed the envelope, experimenting with torture, sexual lewdness and attacks against personal religion. The question is why more Americans have not objected.

THE TIME IS NOW TO ACT, DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED CONGRESS, ARE YOU LISTENING?!?

[pat_k]

58. Option to Vote against in the PRIMARY is missing.