Why wasn't the IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH carried out

[prostock69]

when the articles of impeachment were first introduced back in June of 2008 by Dennis K.? Can someone explained to me why they weren't carried forward and why Bush wasn't impeached?

Thanks.

[Old Codger]

1. Because

Our supposed representatives (sic) have no interest in enforcing our constitution nor the rule of law, no balls at all..

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. "introduced... by Dennis K"

That might be a big part of the answer to your question.

[Radical Activist]

55. sadly true.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Because it would have meant that McCain would probably have become president.

And because they'd inevitably have failed.

[lligrd]

5. That's Quite A Leap

Moon Bot shoes an early Christmas present?

[mtnsnake]

6. What a crock

You don't get penalized for doing what's right and holding criminals accountable. Not trying or not doing anything at all is just as bad.

[TheWraith]

93. We absolutely would have been penalized.

It would have rallied every Republican and most of the former Republicans back around Bush and turned off a hell of voters in the middle.

And all other things aside, we didn't have the votes. Certainly not in the Senate, probably not in the House either.

[TheBigotBasher]

36. Worse than MCLame

Cheney!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. No, because they'd never have removed Bush.

He'd have served out his term, and he an Cheney would have retired, happy and satisfied that their reputations had been vindicated by their acquittal, and that they were leaving Republicans to succeed them.

[mtnsnake]

4. Because of some gutless wonders who have a lot of pull...like Nancy Pelosi

If everyone in our Party had the same amount of guts and sense of what's right that Dennis Kucinich has, we wouldn't lose an election for decades.

[prostock69]

7. Ok, why does SHE have so much pull?

I am not understanding how she got relected to speaker of the house. What is is about her?

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Well...

Apparently Interested Parties Appreciate her Capitulation.

[blue_onyx]

18. Pelosi is so lame and needs to be replaced as Speaker

Maybe she'll get a primary challenger in 2010 (fingers crossed). Pelosi said impeachment is off the table and when the highest ranking Democrat in the House says that, it pretty much ends any movement toward impeachment.

[rasputin1952]

135. But they don't...and more importantly, the #'s were not in the

Seante for conviction...short answer...waste of time, (just like the trial of Clinton was).

[flvegan]

8. Because much of Congress deems our Constitution to be overrated, I suppose.

If they were simply worried about the election, then why have they done nothing since the 5th?

[onehandle]

9. Election year. nt

[JamesA1102]

10. Because they never would have gotten the 67 votes to convict.

Nor did they have enough time to do all the proper investigations to prove Bush had committed impeachable offenses. Remember we still live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. Everyone on DU may be convinced that Bush committed impeachable offenses but it is a different thing to prove it up to the legal threshold. During Watergate is took almost two year of investigation by a Special Prosecutor, a Senate Committee and the House Judiciary Committee to bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the House. The same would be needed for any impeachment of Bush. And just because the Republicans abused the impeachment process against Bill Clinton in the '90s doesn't mean the Dems should have done the same with Bush.

[mtnsnake]

13. They have had the votes to impeach. I'd be happy just with that, knowing that he was impeached

AND THAT WE AT LEAST FUCKING TRIED!!!!

Good gawd, some of you act like impeachment in the House just doesn't matter because he might not be convicted in the Senate. Impeachment does matter. That little asterisk that goes next to his name will make a statement that we're not going to put up with that kind of shit anymore. Besides, how can you state for a fact that they'd never get the 67 votes needed for conviction? What, we're supposed to give up just because YOU don't think it can happen?

[JamesA1102]

15. So you are just looking for a feel good exercise rather than

anything that anything based upon legal priciple.

And with a 50-50 split in the Senate it is hard to imagine that 17 GOP senators would vote to impeach without evidence beyond the legal threshold. Since most of them had voted for Bush's legislation and failed to provide the proper oversight in the previous six years, voting that Bush was guilty would also be an addmission of their own guilt.

[mtnsnake]

17. You just don't get it and you never will, so stick your words into someone elses mouth

[JamesA1102]

23. Yes I never will get why some people are drive by hate and revenge.

Rather than by logic and facts.

[mtnsnake]

26. Stick up on Bush's behalf till you turn blue in the face. Knock yourself out

[JamesA1102]

30. I'm not sticking up for Bush

That's your problem. You're looking at this as black and white with a you're either with us or against us attitude. I thought that was the type of mentality we were fighting against.

I'm sticking up for the constitution and the reality of the situation. I don't want to see the impeachment process abused the way the GOP did in the '90s.

If Bush is impeached there has to be a reasonable assumption that there is enough evidence to obtain a conviction in the Senate. Otherwise it is just a political feel good exercise for the left.

[mtnsnake]

32. Even in the body of this post you're inadvertantly sticking up for him.

If Bush is impeached there has to be a reasonable assumption that there is enough evidence to obtain a conviction in the Senate. Otherwise it is just a political feel good exercise for the left.

Before this, you told me that I was just being driven by vengeance and hatred. In addition to that you tried to discourage me from seeking proper justice on this monster by trying to get me to worry about imaginary consequences of any failure to impeach.

Now you're trying to convince me that there isn't sufficient evidence against Bush.

Sounds to me like you don't want to see the man impeached.

I want him impeached no matter if he's convicte or not. You don't want him impeached, PERIOD. So who is sticking up for him and who isn't?

[JamesA1102]

41. Now you're the one putting words in someone else's mouth.

What I want or what you want is immaterial to the subject. The fact is that there is not sufficient evidence to swing 17 GOP votes needed (plus Lieberman) to vote for conviction in the Senate. There has not been enough investigations done to gather that evidence.

You say that you are not driven by vengence or hatred yet you refer to Bush as a monster. You're use of the term monster shows that you are driven by vengence and hatred.

And impeaching someone without a reasonable chance of conviction is a useless exercise. Because of the principles of innocent until proven guilty and double jeopardy, the failure to convict would legally and as a matter of historical record absolve Bush of his crimes forever. All that would do is tie the hands of any future investigation.

[Two Americas]

46. that is right

There may not be the votes, but there never will be the votes if no one can advocate for justice without being shouted down and ridiculed. Do we poll juries before the trial starts, and then convict or drop charges depending upon that? The way we get votes is to get support, and the way we get support is through advocacy. To say we should not advocate for things because they are impractical, is to deceive us. The only reason for anything being impractical in politics is because their are an insufficient number of people advocating for it. To say that we should not advocate for things because they are impractical is to ask us to abandon our civic duty and moral responsibility, and to surrender the idea of self-government and a representative democracy.

ALL battles for justice start with a handful of people and are initially impractical and unpopular. To dismiss a call for justice on that basis is to argue against justice itself, and to stand firmly with the forces of reaction and against social progress. It is the only way that people do block justice and social progress, throughout history in all of the battles against the great social movements for freedom and justice.

The perpetrators are going to walk, with a smile on their face and with their pockets well-lined and the country in a shambles. That may be what you want to see, it may not. How could we tell from what you are saying?

[mtnsnake]

48. Thank you!

I wish there were a ton more of Democrats/Progressives just like you.

[Two Americas]

53. whoa!

That's a scary thought lol. Thanks mtnsnake.

[JamesA1102]

57. Sorry but that is a bit hypocrital

You speak of justice but one of the core principles of our justice system is that everyone is presummed innocent until proven guilty. So Bush would need to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt for there to be a conviction. You're starting from the presumption that Bush is guilty and working from there.

Now if there had been more time to do proper investigations (like they were able to do in Watergate) with public hearings where the evidence could be laid out and a case built, that would be different. But going for impeachment first is just starting at the end and working backwards. "Let's put him on trial and hope that we come up with enough evidence to find him guilty". Is that the kind of system of justice you are advocating? Again I thought that was the type of thinking that we were against.

And prosecutors do drop charges all the time if they don't think they have a reasonable chance of a conviction. That way if more evidence comes to light later they have the option to refile and are not barred by double jeopardy. Let's be realistic. There was a 50-50 split in the Senate. Democrats couldn't get 10 GOP Senators to end most filabusters. Do you really think they would get an additional 7 to vote to convict Bush in an impeachment proceding without overwhelming evidence? And if not Bush would be legally and historically absolved from those crimes, which would tie the hand of any future investigation. Would you really want that?

[Two Americas]

76. a common mistake

I am starting with the admission on the part of administration officals that they broke the law. It is not as though they have done a very good job of hiding their crimes. They brag about them.

Citizens are presumed innocent when charged with crimes by the state. This is to protect the citizens from the power of the state, not to make those in power immune from the people nor to protect tyrants.

In any case, impeachment is charging an official, not convicting them. Under no circumstances does the presumption of innocence mean that a person is immune from investigation or from being charged and prosecuted.

Yes, prosecutors drop charges when there is insufficient evidence to try a person, but never because of a lack of will on the part of the investigators or prosecutor. By that doctrine, officials would only do their duty when they felt like doing it.

But none of that is what at issue here. We are not deciding whether or not impeachment is a good idea. At issue is whether or not we should be advocating for it. I believe that we should, and it is not subject to whether or not the legislators would or would not support it. They certainly will never impeach or do anything else if there is not public support for it, and it is our job to do our best at rallying public support. we should never pre-emptively give our elected representatives an out, do their jobs for them, make up excuses for them, or do their thinking for them. even if only 5% of the people support impeachment, those 5% need to be heard.

More than enough evidence has already been gathered to justify impeachment. The reason it has not happened is a lack of will on the part of the legislators, and that is because there is not enough public pressure, and that is because too few of us have been strongly advocating for it. To say that we should not advocate it because there is no will on the part of the officials is to turn the democratic process upside down, and render it impotent and inoperative.

[JamesA1102]

86. That's not the question.

Whether you are confusing the issue on purpose or through genuine misunderstanding is unclear. The question is why didn't the House pursue impeachment not whether anyone should be advocating it.

And whether you like it or not everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, even Bush. The problem is you are starting from the conclusion that Bush is guilty and working your way backwards. No where near enough evidence has been gathered to support that. Proper investigations need to be done. Members of the administration have to be called before Congress to testify. Thousands of documents have to subpoenaed and examined to first establish that the law has been violated, then there has to be a chain of evidence that links those violations directly to actions or orders given by Bush and finally it needs to be established that it all rises to the level of high crimes as stated in the constitution. No where near enough investigations have occured to establish all that.

And just one more thing "Yes, prosecutors drop charges when there is insufficient evidence to try a person, but never because of a lack of will on the part of the investigators or prosecutor. By that doctrine, officials would only do their duty when they felt like doing it."

Here you are either grossly naive or purposely confusing the issue. Ask yourself why there are so few whites tried and convicted for killing African-Americans in this country. Is it because whites don't murder African-Americans? Or is it that white murders are so clever that are able to baffle the police? Or is it that even with overwhemling evidence that prosecutors know that it is extremely difficult in the country (and next to impossible down south) to convict a white person of murdering an African-American so they don't even bother to pursue most of those crimes.

[Two Americas]

96. of course it is

Of course whether or not we should advocate impeachment is the issue. That is all we can do. No one here has the power to initiate impeachment, all we are doing here is advocating it, and that it what you are objecting to.

"Here you are either grossly naive or purposely confusing the issue. Ask yourself why there are so few whites tried and convicted for killing African-Americans in this country. Is it because whites don't murder African-Americans? Or is it that white murders are so clever that are able to baffle the police? Or is it that even with overwhemling evidence that prosecutors know that it is extremely difficult in the country (and next to impossible down south) to convict a white person of murdering an African-American so they don't even bother to pursue most of those crimes. "

So in that case, you would argue against those advocating that there should be justice? Because it wasn't practical?

[JamesA1102]

100. Go read the original post and the answer to it

It has nothing to do with advocating impeachment. It is about why Congress didn't pursue Impeachment. Stop trying to change the subject.

[Two Americas]

103. I have answered that

"Why wasn't the IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH carried out..."

My answer:

Because the Demicratic party politicians are too cautious, and that is because they fear there will not be adequate public support to give them cover, and that is because there are too few people advocating impeachment, and that is because we have those among us telling us we should not advocate for it - or anything else that represents a strong stand against the right wingers - because it is supposedly not practical.

This is not merely true in this case, but is a description of how things work in a representative democracy, and also illustrates the biggest challenge for us on all issues - the relentless pressure to be moderate and practical, to not get "too radical," to remnain silent, from the conservatives among us.

[JamesA1102]

For the most part I don't disagree with you.

I would only add what I've been saying from the start that it was not practical because there was no way to get 17 GOP Senators plus Lieberman to vote for impeachment without more investigations proving that Bush has committed crimes.

[Two Americas]

107. yes

And you could be right.

But as a general rule, while you may not get what you ask for, if you don't ask for it you are certain to not get it. That is a chronic problem with Democrats.

[mtnsnake]

47. Where did I say I wasn't driven by vengeance or hatred?

You say that you are not driven by vengence or hatred yet you refer to Bush as a monster.

Where did I say I wasn't? You initiated that one, not me. As a matter of fact, hatred and vengeance do play into it. I don't see how they couldn't play into it for anyone as passionate about seeing Bush held accountable for his gross crimes as I am. Vengeance and hatred aside, the most important thing, though, is seeing that no good despicable coward held accountable.

Conviction aside, all it takes for impeachment is a one vote majority. If you don't think that could be accomplished, then I don't know what else to tell you. The Republcans successfully impeached Clinton for a blowjob. Sure, they didn't go on to get him convicted, but Bill Clinton was impeached and forever it will be a blemish on his record. The Republicans going out of their way to impeach him didn't cost them any election either. In case you didn't notice, they ended up with getting an imbecile into the White House the following year, so impeaching Bush wouldn't have costed us anything, election-wise, like so many other anti-impeachment afficionadoes have previously claimed.

[Lilith Velkor]

51. Thank you!

The ignorance and obstinance here is just fucking staggering. :banghead:

[JamesA1102]

58. Vengence and hatred is mob mentality not justice

Our justice system is built on certain core principles. One of which is a sober examination of evidence not simply vengence and hatred. Just because the GOP abused the impeachment powers against Clinton doesn't mean the Dems should do the same now otherwise we are no better than they are.

[mtnsnake]

64. Just out of curiosity, do you think Bush should be held accountable for his crimes, James?

I want him impeached because I hate what he did and he deserves far worse than impeachment, but I want him impeached because it only takes a one vote majority in the House to do it....and I also want him impeached because I want vengeance, yes. I'd be lying if I told you any different. However, I don't want him impeached ONLY because of vengeance, which is what you implied earlier was the only reason. It's because I want some sort of JUSTICE so it helps prevent another catastrophe like him from ever happening again. He has to be held accountable for his crimes against humanity. As long as there's an iota of a chance of it happening, I won't let up on pleading for justice to be done. I've been putting up a few homemade Impeach Bush signs on and off for almost three years. At first they wouldn't last more than a day or so before someone would take them down. Lately they seem to last quite a while before disappearing. Impeachment or not, I can see George Bush sitting in a jail cell right now in my minds eye. It can happen and it should.

Even if he is only impeached and not convicted, that's a lot better than nothing. No justice at all would be a crime in itself. I'd rather fail trying than not try at all. Then I could rest easy and never have to look back and wish I had done something more.

[JamesA1102]

66. But if you impeach him first and fail to convict

that ties the hands of anyone doing any future investigations. Plus Bush would be absolved of any crimes he committed in the historical record. Do you really want that to happen?

[mtnsnake]

68. Not the case

Failing to get him convicted (ousted from office) for whatever it is that he gets impeached for doesn't mean he can't be sent to jail in the future for crimes against humanity.

And would you mind answering whether or not you want Bush held accountable for his crimes? If you don't want to answer that, no problem, I'm just curious.

[JamesA1102]

74. Yes it is the case

Whether you wish to admit is or not. If Bush were impeached and not convicted it would tie the hands of anyone doing any future investigation.

And as I said in a previous post, what I want or you want is immaterial. There are certain principles that need to be upheld. I just don't think abusing the constitutional impeachment authority is a way of upholding the constitution. The GOP used that reasoning when they impeached Clinton. It didn't hold water then and it doesn't hold water now.

[mtnsnake]

78. Not at all

The crime he'd be impeached for might not be the same as the crimes (plural) he'd be tried for at a future date. The standards could be completely different once he's out of office. For that matter, he could be tried by other countries. They'd laugh at your reasoning if you tried to tell them their hands would be tied. So would anyone else in this country at a later date.

Besides, any future trials for Bush could be setting a precedent at the time, so for you to make claims that anyone's hands would be tied because he wasn't convicted for something previous is just pure speculation on your part.

[JamesA1102]

85. It's not pure speculation it is reality

The only branch of government that can investigate the executive branch is the congress. For and criminal charges brought against Bush the evidence would have to be gathered by congressional investigations. If Bush were to be impeached and not found guilty it would tie the hands of future investigations. Members of the Bush administration could invoke executive and use the Senate's failure to convict as a legal precedent that no crimes had been committed.

[mtnsnake]

91. Maybe you don't realize that Bush only has a couple months left in office?

The only branch of government that can investigate the executive branch is the congress.

No kidding Sherlock. In two months, Bush won't be in office and he won't be the "executive branch", so all your "ifs" won't apply.

You also presume a little too much. In your mind it's a given that Bush will NEVER be convicted of impeachment or anything else. That's the basis of your entire argument. My mind is open to the possibility that the scoundrel MIGHT be convicted.

So I guess you can continue hoping Bush is never held accountable for his crimes for whatever reasons, and I'll continue hoping he is. That's what this subthread originally was about, now that I look back on it. You're pretty good at changing the subject to something you think can't be proven. Is that a debate trick or something?

[JamesA1102]

95. He wouldn't have been convicted.

Not by a 50-50 Senate. If you think differently then your living in a fantasy world. There is no way 17 GOP plus Joe Lieberman would vote to convict unless the evidence was overwhelming. Thus, pursuing impeachment would have been a useless exercise.

At least now with much stonger majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President more thorough investigations can be done and those who broke the law can then be held accountable.

Wanting impeachment for it's own sake without hope of conviction is just a feel good exercise based upon hate and vengence. And without a conviction Bush would never be held accountable because he would have the cover of being found not guilty by the Senate to tie the hands of any and all future investigations.

[mtnsnake]

97. Don't bother answering whether you think Bush should be held accountable

I asked you that question earlier, which you ignored, but I know the answer without you even saying it.

[JamesA1102]

102. Yeah cause it's a gotcha question and not the issue at hand

The issue is why didn't congress pursue impeachment. Sorry you don't like the answer but reality sucks sometimes.

[mtnsnake]

111. Not a gotcha. It's a matter of whether or not you want something bad enough.

I want accountability for Bush, you obviously don't or you would have said so by now. Maybe you don't want accountability because you don't think it's possible or maybe you have other reasons. Only in your mind is it a gotcha question. I was just curious when I asked.

We'll just have to agree to disagree because you're going to tell me all day long that it isn't possible to hold Bush accoutable and I'm going to tell you that it is most certainly possible or nobody would be talking about it if it wasn't.

[JamesA1102]

114. Please it is a gotcha question

And the problem with wanting something really badly is that is sometimes it blinds you to reality.

Also, I never said that I didn't want Bush or anyone not to be held accountable. Just the opposite and that a failed impeachment attempt would hinder any future investigations attempting to hold them accountable.

[Two Americas]

77. it is not going to happen

So what? It is not up to us. Our job is to advocate for it. That is powerful in and of itself.

Bush and his henchman are going to walk, let's not kid ourselves. Don't try to blame that on the people who are advocating impeachment.

What I can't tell is whether or not you support them going free, or support them being held accountable. Why would you promote that which is "practical" or most likely to happen? I don't get that. Either you are defending Bush - in which case you should say so - or you are arguing against your own principles. Why do that?

It is not up to us whether or not the legislators do anything. It is up to us to express our opinions and try to persuade people to them. It is not our job to "be practical" or clever.

[JamesA1102]

87. More putting words in my mouth

Again the original question was why didn't the House vote to impeach Bush. The answer was that there was no reasonable expectation that a conviction could be gained in the Senate with the current amount of evidence available. Sorry if you don't like the answer but that is reality and stop trying to confuse the issue.

[Two Americas]

98. maybe

OR there could be a lack of will, and that could be because there is insufficient public demand, and that could be because too few are speaking for it, and THAT could be because of those among us telling us we should not advocate for it.

You may disagree with that analysis, but it is legitimate and credible.

[JamesA1102]

101. Or maybe it could be that they would never get 17 GOP senators

to vote for conviction and therefore it would be a useless exercise that would only result is helping to shield Bush from future investigations.

[Two Americas]

105. correct

That could be.

Time will tell whether or not they care if Bush is shielded and walks.

In a representative democracy, elected representatives care about what their constituents care about - eventually and ultimately - or so we hope.

Look at the bail out drama. Public sentiment was running so strongly against it that many Republican representatives initially voted against it. And who was it that saved the Bush administration, who advocated practicality even though that ignored public opinion? It was the economic conservatives and authoritarians among us, that is who. The same line of reasoning was used there that you are using on the impeachment issue.

I think that we now have abundant evidence that the "practicality" arguments from the Democratic politicians and their sycophants in the activist community is a ruse - a tactic to move the party to the right and to disguise that as something else.

[JamesA1102]

106. It is not a ruse

If it is please list the 17 GOP Senators who you think would vote to convict Bush in an impeachment proceeding.

[Two Americas]

108. speculation, of course

It would be the 17 Republican Senators who, just as the many Republican representatives who initially voted against the administration's bail out scam, recognized that their own survival as politicians was at risk if they went against public sentiment - informed public sentiment after evidence against the administration had been revealed - or who placed principle above politics.

If the public were convinced that the administration had committed crimes - and a failed impeachment does not confer immunity from criminal prosecution of public officials) - and Republican Senators stubbornly refused to honor that, it could be a political victory. I am not saying that there are no political risks, by the way.

Democrats chronically look at what public opinion is, and spend too little time and effort aggressively trying to change public opinion. This leaves the field open to the right wingers, and they influence and manipulate public opinion with very little opposition from the Democrats.

I say we should stop surrendering to the right wingers in the battle for public opinion. Basing what we do and say on so-called reality, rather than on principles and ideals, just ensures that things do not change. It is like trying to steer a car by looking in the rear view mirror. Since we can't see where we will be in an hour down the road, we reject that as "dreaming" and impractical and pat ourselves on the back for being "reality based" - looking everywhere except where we are going.

It is time we had the courage to be "dream based" and give up the comforting fog of so-called "reality." The right wingers are making reality while we merely react to it, always a day late and a dollar short.

That reminds me of a story about U.S. Grant at the battle of the Wilderness. Throughout the day, there was a steady stream of officers reporting alarming news to Grant - Lee was doing this, Lee was doing that. Grant finally called them together and dressed them down. "General Lee this, general Lee that, I am sick of hearing about what Lee is doing or might do. Go back to your units and start thinking about what you are going to do, not what General Lee is going to do."

[JamesA1102]

115. Public opinion is a big IF

That's why you need thorough investigations like we had during Watergate. Only through those type of public hearings would the public be convinced. But those hearings haven't happened yet so going forward with impeachment would just be a failed exercise.

And I never said that a failed impeachment would grant immunity but remember this administration has resisted congressional oversight. Karl Rove and Harriet Myers have failed to appear when subpoenaed, Dick Cheney claimed he's not part of the executive branch. Imagine trying to get them to testify in the future if they had the legal precedent of Bush being found not guilty in an Impeachment proceeding.

[Two Americas]

117. of course

No is arguing against investigative hearings.

[Two Americas]

44. some things are "black and white"

I cannot understand how the word "left" has become a pejorative, here, among Democrats, on a site dedicated to Democrats. "The left" is thrown around as though it were an insult.

I think that when it comes to torture, illegal detention, illegal wars, and dozens of other actions by this administration it very much is a matter that is black and white. By the standards you are setting out here, no criminals could ever be brought to justice, and no law would ever be respected.

You claim to be arguing for practicality, but I think that is a smokescreen. That leads to a question - why would anyone argue against bringing perpetrators to justice? I am very interested in understanding that. Perhaps it is not possible to do so. But is that what you are really arguing?

Do you believe that the powerful should not be held to the same standards of accountability as the rest of us? That is a doctrine at odds with the theory of legitimate government that is the foundation of our system, and of all law in this country.

Are you uncertain as to whether or not the administration has committed crimes? Can no suspect be investigated until and unless conviction is a certainty? Is that not backward?

Do you not find those crimes serious? What crimes could possibly be more serious?

[JamesA1102]

62. Another one putting words in my mouth.

I really hate that. It is so intellectually dishonest.

I never said don't investigate. Just the opposite. I said full investigations where all the evidence could be gathered was needed first. Not starting with an impeachment proceeding and working backwards.

Plus if you impeach Bush and fail to convict him in the Senate that absolves him of any crimes he committed in the historical record for all time. Do you really want that to happen?

You mention illegal detentions where the Bush administration imprisoned people without proper investigations or evidence enough to meet the legal threshold being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Isn't advocating for Bush to be impeached without proper investigations and evidence first the same thing?

[Two Americas]

79. no problem then

What are you arguing about?

Calling for impeachment leads to investigations.

How on earth is advocating impeachment denying Bush or anyone else due process? The protections of the rights of the citizens are part of a fabric of a theory of government that says right belong to the citizens, not to government officials preying on the citizens, and protecting us from abuse by officials and those in power, not to protect those in power.

Impeachment is charging, not convicting.

We have a right to offer our opinions, though, as to Bush's guilt should we choose to do that. The right to the presumption of innocence is not an injunction against citizens expressing their opinions.

Do you, or do you not believe that administration officials are guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors? If you do not, then your practicality arguments and your strategic concerns are disingenuous. If you do, then we can have an intelligent discussion as to the most practical strategic and tactical course, and reasonable people can disagree about that.

But you are arguing that people here should not advocate impeachment. That is what I am defending - people's right and duty to advocate for what they believe to be right. I will defend that right whether or not I agree with them.

[JamesA1102]

88. I'm arguing the original question.

You continue to cloud the issue and put words in my mouth that I never said either because of genuine misunderstanding on your part or because you are being intellectually dishonest and trying to cloud the issue.

And impeachment doesn't lead to investigations. Again you have it backward. Investigations lead to impeachment and other prosecutions if it is found that laws were violated.

My arguement has always been that rushing into impeachment without proper investigations first is a useless enterprise. First, with the current 50-50 split in the Senate there was no hope of conviction without enough evidence to back it up. Second, that an failed impeachment would legally estabish that Bush had not committed any crimes which would tie the hands of any and all future investigations.

[Two Americas]

99. no problem

No one is advocating "rushing into impeachment without proper investigations first."

Again, you switch from one set of arguments - "not enough evidence" - torture, wire-tapping, politicized appointments, outing a CIA officer, buying off journalists, lying the country into war, suspending habeas corpus? - and "Bush is innocent until proved guilty" - is anyone was advocating the denial of due process to anyone? - and then switch over to the "we don't have the votes" practicality arguments.

Still, you will not take a position. Do you believe that crimes were committed by the people in the administration, or do you not? Your opinion. Do you advocate that those committing crimes should be brought to justice, or do you not?

[JamesA1102]

104. Again you have it backwards.

If you bothered to read my original post it said:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7933988&mesg_id=7934224">Because they never would have gotten the 67 votes to convict.
Nor did they have enough time to do all the proper investigations to prove Bush had committed impeachable offenses. Remember we still live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. Everyone on DU may be convinced that Bush committed impeachable offenses but it is a different thing to prove it up to the legal threshold. During Watergate is took almost two years of investigations by a Special Prosecutor, a Senate Committee and the House Judiciary Committee to bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the House. The same would be needed for any impeachment of Bush. And just because the Republicans abused the impeachment process against Bill Clinton in the '90s doesn't mean the Dems should have done the same with Bush.

So I have been perfectly consistant in what I have been saying from the start. And as I've also repeatedly stated my opinion is immaterial to the issue since we are simply discussing the reality of the situation.

[Two Americas]

118. that is correct

I see it backward from the way you see it.

You say that because we don't have the votes for something, we should not advocate for it.

I say that because we don't advocate for something, we never will have the votes.

[JamesA1102]

120. Stop putting words in my mouth!

When you do that you just prove yourself to be a liar!

I never said a word about advocating for something or not. That's not the issue and you know it. Stop the lying.

[Two Americas]

122. ROFL

You phrase it then, I don't care. What are you saying? Where do you stand?

I have struggled to figure out what you are trying to say throughout this thread.

Sum up what you are trying to say.

[JamesA1102]

126. If you read my original post

you would know exactly what I'm saying. Maybe you're just too blinded by your own hatred and dishonestly to understand it.

[Two Americas]

136. I think this was your first post

"Because they never would have gotten the 67 votes to convict. Nor did they have enough time to do all the proper investigations to prove Bush had committed impeachable offenses. Remember we still live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. Everyone on DU may be convinced that Bush committed impeachable offenses but it is a different thing to prove it up to the legal threshold. During Watergate is took almost two year of investigation by a Special Prosecutor, a Senate Committee and the House Judiciary Committee to bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the House. The same would be needed for any impeachment of Bush. And just because the Republicans abused the impeachment process against Bill Clinton in the '90s doesn't mean the Dems should have done the same with Bush."

In brief:

1. Not enough votes

2. Not enough evidence

3. Not enough time

4. It would abuse the impeachment process

I think those are your points. They are opinions, requiring judgment on your part, and not without merit. I think people respect your view, but they disagree and have refuted each of your points. We can't know which side is right, since it is all speculation. I think there is very little chance that any of the officials from the administration will be brought to justice. I think those who are moved to continue to call for impeachment should do so.

Where is the problem?

[JamesA1102]

147. And none of those points has ever been refuted

but you are welcome to do so now.

So please list:

1. All 17 GOP Senators plus Lieberman who would most likely vote for impeachment and why. In fact I'll give you Spector, Snow, Collins and Hagel so it is only 13 GOPs senators you need to list. And please be specific as to the reasons why based on their past statements and voting records and what piece of evidence would most sway them.

2. All the evidence including citing exactly what laws were specifically violated, when and where they were violated and the chain of evidence that links Bush directly to those violations. Please cite actual sworn testimony and any supporting documents. Also show how said evidence would sway any of the 13 GOP senators from item #1.

3. Any and all investigations that have taken place since June and exactly what evidence they uncovered that support impeachment as defined in item #2. Again please be specific.

Now remember this is specifically about why impeachment wasn't pursued after Kuncinich introduced articles last June. That is the issue I addressed in my first post and have always been addressing. It is not about advocating anything or who wants what so please spare us your diversions. Answer all of the above directly and specifically or please stop wasting everyone's time.

[mtnsnake]

92. "What are you arguing about?"

I see you've noticed that some people are very good at changing the subject & arguing about that instead. ;)

[Yukari Yakumo]

31. Since when is opposing Impeachment equate to supporting Bush?

Especially when it is crystal clear that any paltry gains would be grossly overshadowed by the costs when trying to impeach?

You've revealed yourself to be little different than the common Freeper, the lone difference is your political leanings. The only things that are acceptable to you are those things that fit your very narrow world view. Everyone and everything else can go f*** themselves. You're not here to discuss. You're here to bully.

[mtnsnake]

35. It's not, ordinarily, but in this case it appears to be exactly that

As far as the rest of the post, you and I both know that you are simply full of it up to your eyeballs. Try pasting your "You've revealed yourself to be little different than the common Freeper" jibberish somewhere where it truly applies. Grow a spine while you're at it, and stop enabling our Party to continue being perceived as such a group of wimpy pushovers.

[Two Americas]

45. justice transcends that

Justice is not something that we seek or not depending upon what the costs and benefits might be. The doctrine you are espousing is morally bankrupt.

Justice is not a "narrow world view." Assessing costs and benefits, and deciding whether or not justice is worthwhile to pursue is the narrow world view.

Advocating for justice is not "bullying." It may be tweaking the consciences of some, and making them feel trapped in their own internal contradictions, but that is not the fault of the speaker.

[JamesA1102]

63. You keep speaking of justice but

your arguments go against the core principles of our justice system. Mainly that everyone has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And because of that no one should be put on trial for crimes unless there is compeling and convincing evidence that that person committed those crimes. What you're advocating is just the opposite. Now if that were the case in our justice system, the state could put ordinary people on trial for crimes where there was no evidence or chance to convict in order to harass them. Is that the kind of justice system you are advocating?

[Two Americas]

81. that has been answered

The "presumption of innocence" argument is a red herring and has been adequately refuted.

Besides, I thought you were arguing that it was not practical. We still don't know where you stand. You justify not taking a stand by saying it is not "black and white." Politics is about taking a stand, even though the issues are complex, and having the courage to defend the stand you have taken. That is not "extremism" or any of the other insults thrown at anyone here who takes a stand on anything, especially if it is a strong stand, or a stand that is a millimeter to the Left from moderate Republicanism.

In any case, what is at issue is whether or not people should advocate impeachment. The people who actually make the decision can work put all of this practicality stuff on there own. They don't need excuses for us.

Our job is to advocate for what we think is right, not defend the politicians excuses for their inertia, and their inertia is of course the direct result of us NOT advocating for what we believe to be right. Do you, or do you not think that there is sufficient evidence at hand to call for investigations, which should our suspicions be borne out, and should it be possible (of course, but first we need the will and desire, those are what is missing) that would then warrant impeachment proceedings?

There is no other way for it to happen, so of course those advocating impeachment are advocating exactly what I just outlined.

The logic you are using is that we cannot talk about harvesting corn, because first we would need to plow the field and plant the seed. NO! A thousand times no. First we need to discuss whether or not we want to grow corn. If no one is saying that we want to grow corn, then of course growing corn is impractical.

Impeachment now is, and always has been, impractical because of Democrats arguing that it is impractical. Either they are lying, or they are confused, or they are cowards.

Why not be honest and come right out and say "I don't want corn!" If you do want corn, why not stop arguing with yourself about that?

[JamesA1102]

89. It is not a red herring and you know it.

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. Even in an impeachment proceeding the accused is given the presumption of innocence. In fact the legal threshold is even higher because in an impeachment the will of the people in an election is being overturned.

And please stop trying to cloud the issue. The original question was why didn't the House pursue impeachment. That it the question I was answering. Everything else it is as you would put it a "red herring".

[Two Americas]

116. why it is a red herring

The "Bush is innocent until proved guilty" argument is a red herring, because no one is calling for denying due process to anybody.

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Examples of Red Herring

# "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

# "Argument" for a tax cut:

"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."

# "Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:

"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[JamesA1102]

121. It is a red herring and you know it.

And since you've now repeatedly proven your self to be dishonest and liar; I see no reason to continue this discussion any further.

[Two Americas]

123. ROFL!!

That'll teach me.

OK, it is a Norwegian blue parrot.

[JamesA1102]

127. Typical response of a dishonest person

Just try to pretend it is all a big joke when caught lying.

[Two Americas]

137. tried to lighten things up

Where have I "lied?"

[JamesA1102]

140. Every time up puts words in someone's mouth and tried

to change the subject.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

21. No one can predict the future

Otherwise everyone would have shorted the stock market!

The Repugs didn't let fears of not being able to impeach Clinton from stopping them; in fact, they thought it was a "slam dunk." The people told them otherwise.

More importantly, to not impeach Bush for the crimes he's committed tells future presidents they are not bound by the law, ever. If what Bush has done isn't impeachable, then nothing is. Secondly, impeachment isn't a political choice, it's a constitutional mandate. It doesn't say the president "should" be impeached. It's "shall." Thirdly, even if there is no conviction, a legal record of testimony will have been established. As it stands now the Bushies have succeeded in preventing any other version of history than theirs to be recorded. Without testimony and evidence contrary to this, they will be able to make Bush the greatest president ever -- because there's no legal record to say otherwise.

That's why we need to impeach.

[JamesA1102]

27. But one can make a reasonable assessment of a situation

So it is reasonable to assume that if the Dems could not get 10 GOP Senators to end most filibusters that it would be next to impossible to get 17 to vote for impeachment.

The purpose of impeachment is not to score political points it is to remove someone from office. The GOP abused the impeachment process against Clinton.

Any DA or prosecutor will tell that it is irresponsible to bring and indictment against someone unless there is sufficient evidence to reasonably support a conviction. It would be just as irresponsible for Congess to vote for impeachment without a reasonable assumption that Bush could be convicted.

And remember two of the principles that our system is built upon, innocent until proven guilty and double jeopardy. If Congress voted to impeach and the Senate failed to convict, Bush would legally be absolved from those crimes forever. That would tie the hands of any future investigation in to the activities of the Bush administration.

[Yukari Yakumo]

29. Earth to MORON.

Sorry, the world does not work that way.

"Impeachment isn't a political choice, it's a constitutional mandate."?

:rofl: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :rofl:

To say it isn't a political choice is laughable and utterly naive. The impeachment process *is* a political choice. To quote Roger Simon, "Want to know how to make George Bush an object of sympathy rather than an object of criticism? Try to impeach him." Do you seriously think the public has any appetite for any kind of impeachment proceedings while the economy is in ruins and we're mired in two wars?

[onenote]

37. Prove that "they have had the votes to impeach"

It is a virtual certainty that the votes were NOT there to impeach or even to formally authorize an impeachment inquiry, which would have been the first step. There are several dozen blue dog Democrats who had no interest in pursuing impeachment. Moreover, even more moderate and progressive Democrats had little interest in pursuing the matter. Impeachment was not an issue on which virtually anyone ran in 2006 or 2008. It wasn't a priority with the electorate and therefore wasn't a priority with congress.

[Two Americas]

125. that tells us nothing

They, the elected officials, have no interest in pursuing anything that there is not public demand for, and there can only be public demand as a result of advocacy. People here are advocating. You are objecting to that. Why?

[JamesA1102]

128. Why do you keep on dishonestly trying to change the subject?

Is it because you know you can't win discussing this honestly?

[mtnsnake]

132. Who the hell are you to accuse someone of changing the subject??

That's the first thing you did way the heck upthread was change the subject. Too funny.

[JamesA1102]

141. Because that what you keep trying to do.

Very dishonest of you. At first I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you hadn't read the earlier posts in the thread and directed you to them, but you still kept trying to change the subject andd dishonestly put words in people's mouths.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Winning the November elections was a higher priority than making you happy

Democratic leaders didn't want to do anything that could have altered what was a very favorable playing field. Is it any wonder that Obama opposed impeachment?

[Two Americas]

124. this thread is getting hilarious

Was that the choice? Either winning the election or making mtnsnake happy?

This is a tough one....I DO want so much to make mtnsnake happy....hmmmmm

"We" don't "win" anything when it comes at the expense of not fighting or remaining silent, and "we" is not the officials we elect to representative us. They - the representatives - have a duty to listen to us, and we have a duty to speak out. That does not mean that anyone is "unhappy" - except perhaps you.

Don't drag Obama into this and hide behind him. I completely understand why HE didn't advocate for impeachment. That does not mean you shouldn't - I am assuming that you are unhappy with this devil's bargain you have made in your own mind - win or be happy -and are projecting it on others - and it certainly does not mean that you should complain about others doing it and insult them.

I am happy that they - Obama and other Democrats - won, and hope that perhaps we - the people in the country - can win someday too, and I am happy to see people dissent and speak out. I am happy with representative democracy in action.

I am so happy I can hardly stand it. Maybe it will rub off on mtnshake?

[JamesA1102]

129. No it is actually getting sad

Sad that you are so blinded by your own point of view that you refuse to discussion the issue honestly. Sad that you feel the need to put words in other people's mouths because you refuse to accept the reality of situation that several people have highlighted. Sad that you are resorting to the worst right-wing dishonest debating tactics because of your own myopia.

[mtnsnake]

133. I'm getting a little sick & tired of listening to you accuse that poster of being dishonest

and blinded and putting words into other peoples mouths and blah blah blah in post after post when that simply isn't the case. You were the first one to put words in another poster's mouth on this thread and I know it first hand because you tried doing it to me. IMO, you['re just upset that some of us are passionate about seeing justice brought to Bush, and for you to keep insisting that it is impossible is just plain ludicrous.

[JamesA1102]

146. The issue is and always has been

why impeachment was not pursued after Kucinich introduced articles last June. That is the question that I have always been addressing. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer. It has noting to do with being passionate or about who advocates what. It is simply about the original question posted at the top of the thread.

Like the other poster you've repeatedly tried to change the issue and ask gotcha questions and even admitted that you are driven by hatred of Bush and a need for vengence.

If you think my point that they never would have gotten 17 GOP senators plus Joe Lieberman to crossover is ludicrous please list the 17 GOP senators you think would be most likely to vote for impeachment and why? Please be specific.

[prostock69]

139. Thanks, that makes sense

:thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

12. Bush's crimes have Democratic fingerprints all over them!

Both major parties failed to defend the Constitution and the Republic!

[AtomicKitten]

19. Bingo. n/t

[polichick]

20. Sadly, this must be the reason.

[mtnsnake]

22. In Pelosi's case it's more of a question of what she & a handful of other people knew about torture

...things that nobody else in Congress but them knew about, and she never said a word about it all those years. That is probably the biggest reason why she jumped into bed with Bush right after we won the majority in 2006, because she knew that she would be blackmailed by Bushco for not fessing up about her knowledge of the torture that was taking place all that time...and her disgusting silence about it.

[Two Americas]

142. yes

We aren't supposed to say that, though.

[Cleita]

14. Funny you should ask. I've been asking myself that question a lot and the

only answer I can come up with is that widespread corruption is what is keeping justice from being done. It has occurred to me that the investigation into the Bush administration will bring up so much corruption out into the light in Washington including in Congress that it will shake the nation to the core and this is on both sides of the aisle. So I believe that the leadership and that isn't only Nancy Pelosi agreed early on, even before the new session of this Congress began, that they were going to keep a lid on it by not bringing impeachment to the table. I'll bet there are records being sealed right now in the Library of Congress that will only be opened fifty years from now and anybody still alive from this era will learn the truth.

[prostock69]

144. Thanks for your response. You are probably right about the sealing of documents

It makes me sad that Obama will probably not even attempt to address this huge mess because he's been handed even a bigger one. This is probably why Karl Rove is so smug every time you see him on T.V. For someone who has his filthy fingers in every crime that Bush and Co. have committed, he doesn't seem to worried about being brought to justice for them.

[prostock69]

145. Thanks for your response. You are probably right about the sealing of documents

It makes me sad that Obama will probably not even attempt to address this huge mess because he's been handed even a bigger one. This is probably why Karl Rove is so smug every time you see him on T.V. For someone who has his filthy fingers in every crime that Bush and Co. have committed, he doesn't seem to worried about being brought to justice for them.

[DutchLiberal]

16. Because Bush never got a blowjob!

[Generator]

24. So Obama could be president

The one and only goal that Pelosi and the entire Dem establishment has had since 2006 is getting a Dem in there. End the war-forget that shit-gotta get elected. End torture-forget that shit-gotta get elected. End FISA-oh wait Dear Obama supported that one.

And you should know-nobody likes Kucinich on the hill. They don't do truth. They do getting elected. (Fortunately lots of regular people-you know NOT politicians like him thus he still gets elected)

[Yukari Yakumo]

25. It would have never passed the House, much less the Senate.

Democrats do not walk lock step like the current crop of Repukes.

Without compelling evidence and a rock solid case, impeachment legislation would never win the support of the Blue Dogs at the very least. Without them, any legislation is unlikely to pass.

Also, see post #10.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Democrats do walk in lock step

particularly if impeachment hearings would have revealed their level of collaboration with Bush's crimes.

[gravity]

28. Impeachment would be a legal divisive mess

There isn't a smoking gun or an easy case for impeachment, and we have to follow the rule of law in the process. The Bush lawyers are smart enough to have quasi legal justifications for all of their actions, and worst case just pass the blame onto someone else.

This would just lead a stalemate in Congress and make the Democratic party look like vindictive fools in the 2008 elections.

[LWolf]

33. Because it wasn't an issue on Mainstreet. nt

[onenote]

38. ding ding ding!!

[Orsino]

39. Moral failure.

Impeachment would have required not only caring about the crimes of the Bush Administration, but considerable courage in the Fear Era. Congress was doubly unqualified.

[tritsofme]

40. Because it was only an issue to the far left blogosphere.

And was on the radar of no one else.

Same thing happened to the Republicans circa 1998, except they actually listened to the kooks of their party.

[S_E_Fudd]

42. Because if they had we would have been stuck with President McCain...

Instead of President Obama...

[Occam Bandage]

43. Because there wasn't any way in hell that 17 GOP Senators would vote to convict.

(Since we know there's no way in hell Lieberworm would vote against Dubya)

[L0oniX]

49. George Carlin knew why.

http://www.jibjab.com/view/120996

[Two Americas]

50. they will be back

If no one is brought to justice, the people who perpetrated these crimes will be back with a vengeance and renewed determination, just as they were after the Nixon and Reagan administrations. The Bush administration has trained the next generation, a new cadre of right wingers, and they are busy right now planning their next assault on the republic.

Each time it gets worse. We survived the Nixon era, the Reagan era, and we may have survived the Bush era by the skin of our teeth. I am not confident we can survive the next assault, and most of us will live to see it.

[Ozma]

54. Throw them out, get them out, then let the .

International courts and tribunals indict them, rendition them, try them, and make sure they are executed on Public TV.

Oh, maybe Condi Rice can spend his last 25 years on the planet in GTMO, run by the Germans, or somewhere in the Out Back run by the Aussie's.

Just as long as that person suffers a lot, and everyone else gets convicted and loses his life.

[Blarch]

56. Because our leaders...

care more about power than the US Constitution.

They have betrayed us all.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Democrats felt that winning the November elections was more important

They did not want to do anything to jeopardize that.

[PassingFair]

70. Democrats would have won in 04 if they had supported an anti-Iraq war candidate.

Instead, we choose the "give them enough rope to hang themselves"
strategy.

We let them RUIN our country. We let them RUIN Iraq.
Bankruptcy all around. Americans thrown out of their homes.
No jobs. The dollar at 81 CENTS to the Canadian dollar.

Great strategy!

We could have won running a HAM SANDWICH this cycle and won.

In fact, the ONLY way we could have LOST this cycle would
have been if we had run Hillary Clinton.

"They did not want to do anything to jeopardize that."

:rofl:

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. If an anti-Iraq war candidate was so electable in 2004, why couldn't one of them win the primary?

That stance was so toxic in 2004 that all it took was one TV ad with Osama bin Laden to derail what was looking like an unstoppable campaign for Howard Dean. Better for that to have happened in the primary rather than in the general election so as not to cause losses in Congress.

[Robeson]

61. Complicity.

[judasdisney]

80. Complicity: I second that.

Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Rahm E., all agreed to torture, warrantless wiretaps, secret assassinations of Iraqi judges & doctors & academics, secret kidnappings.

[Ozma]

65. If any of you here thinks Dennis K could have managed the world financial...

crisis as well as Obama as a NON President, come forward and get your dunce cap award.

[EFerrari]

112. Excuse me? What does impeachment have to do with that?

And, btw, it's going to be years before the billions of dollars giveaway Obama endorsed is made right. Years, jobs, homes and even lives. Looks like you need to fit yourself for one of those hats.

[Two Americas]

143. that's it, I am convinced

Of course people should not call for bringing the officials from the Bush administration to justice! After all, Kucinich could not have managed the world financial crisis as well as Obama as a NON President!

As a NON president, folks - think about that. Obama is a much better non president than Kucinich could ever be. I will never support Kucinich for non president again. And if Kucinich cannot manage a world financial crisis as well as Obama, particularly as a non president, well then obviously advocating impeachment of Bush is a very bad idea.

[BeFree]

67. Three words

Military Industrial Complex.

If bush went down, it would be like the end of the Viet Nam war and all that cash that headed that way.

Nixon went down and the war ended. Just like in dominoes.

Newsflash! The MIC is our enemy!

[Hippo_Tron]

84. The Military Industrial Complex didn't go anywhere after Vietnam

And if Bush somehow went down, the Military Industrial Complex would not be going with him. There is no secret conspiracy that keeps the Military Industrial Complex in business. It's the simple fact that so many Americans have a job from it in some way or another that there remains strong political will to keep it alive.

[BeFree]

90. MIC is

...there because of the money to be made. And stolen. Rummy even said on 9-10-01 that a trillion dollars of the DoD budget was missing. I contend that if bush had been taken down the money flowing into Iraq would have been curtailed and profits decreased.

The political will to keep the MIC growing is that too much money is made from it, that and some folks are cool with the 'Department of Mortality'^TM budget.

[salguine]

69. Because if it had gone to trial, it would have also come to light how many

Democrats were also up to their necks in this shit. Pelosi has bent over so far backward to prevent any action at all that I swear to God she's deathly afraid of something being dragged out in the open.

[spanone]

71. you tell me.

law was ignored

[Kaleva]

72. Little public demand for it

[MrSlayer]

73. Too many skeletons in the closet.

There was complicity on both sides of the aisle. To get the Chimp and Cheney they would have had to take down half the Democrats too. They would never do that to themselves.

[cooolandrew]

82. Bush spied on Tony Blair for sure they weren't going to impeach he mostly likely had goods on all>

them given this new info. I wonder if he had something big on Joe Lieberman that made him tap dance so much. I know he was pro war but he took it to the empth degree. No one tapped danced more than Lieberman and Blair for Bush and it does make you wonder with this new info. The goods may not of been anything too outrageous maybe unethical conduct but enough to keep them quiet. Not to say all on the hill but enough for him not to worry.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. Impeachment is a tool that has been used twice in our nation's history

Once to bring bullshit charges against Andrew Johnson and once to bring bullshit charges against Bill Clinton. I'm sure that the founding fathers intended for impeachment to be a way to remove a President who has overstepped his authority. But if you think that the majority of Americans really see impeachment in that way then I have some beachfront property to sell you.

Look up John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts. It's the first in a long series of presidential abuses of power that have gone un-punished. Nixon's downfall was his cover-up of an ordinary petty crime. Nobody even considered prosecuting him for his real abuse of power which was using police powers to spy on and intimidate his "enemies".

Additionally, people do not understand that a President is still breaking the law even if it is in the course of performing his official duties. They think that Bush's illegal wiretapping wasn't really punishable because he was supposedly trying to protect us from terrorists while doing so. And there's really no reason that they should think otherwise because no President has ever been punished for their abuses of power. If Bush robbed a 7/11 or stole a car, people would understand those as offenses punishable by law. But they don't understand that what Bush has done is a criminal offense.

So we can sit here all day and say it's because Pelosi and the Democrats are spineless and indeed they are. But that is oversimplifying a far more complex problem. Americans don't understand that presidential abuses of power are supposed to be punished. And they don't understand impeachment as anything more than a partisan tool to bring bullshit charges against the President.

[Sex Pistol]

94. Because most Dems who are a whole lot smarter

than Dennis K.

(You can only bang your head against the wall for so long before it begins to hurt)

[Sam1]

109. George Carland explained it very well.

There is a club and George Bush is a Fucking Member. Which is why, when the democratic voters rejected Holy Joe, many of the congressional democrates supported him. After all Joe, like George, is a member of the fucking club!

[Jamastiene]

110. We have had it drilled into our heads: "Impeachment is off the table." n/t

[crusoe]

113. Because pragmatism beats ideology

Or something.

[miyazaki]

119. it was just kabuki theater remember? Campbell Brown said so.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

130. Good question. It's not too late.

[loyalsister]

131. Unikely to be successful

and it would have a potential to backfire and inspire sympathy for Bush and Republicans.

[rasputin1952]

134. #'s...he would not have been convicted in the Senate...

the short answer...it would have been a waste of time.

[MyNameGoesHere]

138. Because the repukes inpeachment against clinton

caused this constitutional act to become a political tool. No one wanted to be seen using it as a tit for tat. People still do not understand how that stupidity undermined the last act of checks against tyranny.