When the Democrats are asked if they will try to impeach Bush?

[kentuck]

They seem to get on the defensive? I don't know why? Chuck Shumer seemed a little defensive with the question this morning on Face The Nation. I can't understand why they don't have a simple response.
"Look, we will do our job of oversight that this present "rubberstamp" Congress has not done. If there are questions of illegality or unconstitutional acts, we will investigate. We will perform our oversight responsibility on this White House that seems to have no regard for the rights of American citizens. If they break the law, and the law requires, yes we would impeach. It would be irresponsible for us to say otherwise."

[Rufus T. Firefly]

1. Why can't they just say "We'll definitely have investigations."

"Whether impeachment happens or not depends on what he did."

[ClassWarrior]

6. I'm guessing the ones who don't are being cowed by the consultants again.

Freaks like Shrum telling them to stay away from the I-word.

I say...

Visualize IMPEACHMENT. And...

Never Give Up.

[applegrove]

2. Democrats stand to benefit from a Bush in power for two more years.

I don't know why they would want impeachment. Just oversight and ability to question witnesses under oath.

Of course they would balk at the GOP fear mongering talking point. As if Americans should be afraid of clearing the air. Which the Dems can do without impeaching.

[Independent_Liberal]

5. "I don't know why they would want impeachment."

Why the hell not? He's shredded our civil liberties, lied us into war, defrauded our government, authorized torture and detainment without charge, stole two elections, etc. What good reason is there NOT to impeach?

[applegrove]

7. Um.. Cheney is next in line.. and they would get to pick a new VP.

The problem is much deeper than Bush. He is the figurehead and should be treated as such. Don't you want to see the oil industry execs forced to testify under oath? Would not oversight be much better in terms of getting to the truth than one big impeachment that would then serve to wash the GOP of all sins.. even as McCain, Rove and Krystal work together on the 2008 election?

Isn't the problem a little deeper than the president? If he goes then Cheney just continues with the radical neoconism.

I am not AMerican. I have no right to talk of impeachment.. really.

But I'm with Molly Ivins on this one:

As We Survey The Crumbling Ruins
By MOLLY IVINS
Creators Syndicate
Star-Telegram


"....Snip

It's going to be up to the Democrats to hold the metaphoric hands of this crippled administration until it limps off stage. The Republican National Committee has a new scare tactic for the faithful: You must give to the party, or else the Democrats will spend the next two years investigating the administration (horror of horrors). Those who recall the insanely trivial investigations of the Clinton years may indeed regard this as the ultimate waste of time and money (as even Ken Starr concluded, there never was anything to Whitewater), but in fact it could be a therapeutic use of the next biennium. In fact, the offenses are not comparable.

Suppose we stopped to investigate why and how and who is responsible for this administration's lies, deformed policies and inability to govern. There is a wealth of lessons to be learned about the dangers of ideological delusion and contempt for governance.

Trouble is, the world is not apt to hold still for two years. It seems to me pointless to impeach George W. Bush. The Republicans so trivialized impeachment into partisan piffle that it would look like little more than payback. And Dick Cheney is seriously off the rails, apparently deeply paranoid -- let's not put him in charge.

The minimum we should expect of Bush in return for dropping impeachment (or not) is that he cease breaking the law. Despite the opinions of Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, etc., the president of the United States does not have the authority to set aside the law.

....Snip"

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/14627877.htm

[ClassWarrior]

8. IF Cheney** survives IMPEACHMENT investigations himself, just...

...see whether or not that monster can govern. Talk about a benefit to the Dems for two more years!

NGU.

[Independent_Liberal]

9. Impeach Cheney first, then Bush.

That way we wouldn't have to worry.

[tives12]

10. Not to mention

Clinton was impeached for a sex act! I think that all those things IL just listed would surely outweigh sex. Yes, that last impeachment was a waste of time and money but that doesn't mean that that one instance should dictate whether future leaders get punished for their crimes.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Agreed. The American people aren't stupid.

NGU.

[Lefty48197]

3. The GOP knows how the public feels about impeachment

The voters think the last impeachment was a big fat waste of time, money, and integrity.

[Drum]

4. "That depends on where the investigations take us."

Simple

The way the 9.11 ivestigations should've been.

[applegrove]

12. But I'm with Molly Ivins on this one:

As We Survey The Crumbling Ruins
By MOLLY IVINS
Creators Syndicate
Star-Telegram


"....Snip

It's going to be up to the Democrats to hold the metaphoric hands of this crippled administration until it limps off stage. The Republican National Committee has a new scare tactic for the faithful: You must give to the party, or else the Democrats will spend the next two years investigating the administration (horror of horrors). Those who recall the insanely trivial investigations of the Clinton years may indeed regard this as the ultimate waste of time and money (as even Ken Starr concluded, there never was anything to Whitewater), but in fact it could be a therapeutic use of the next biennium. In fact, the offenses are not comparable.

Suppose we stopped to investigate why and how and who is responsible for this administration's lies, deformed policies and inability to govern. There is a wealth of lessons to be learned about the dangers of ideological delusion and contempt for governance.

Trouble is, the world is not apt to hold still for two years. It seems to me pointless to impeach George W. Bush. The Republicans so trivialized impeachment into partisan piffle that it would look like little more than payback. And Dick Cheney is seriously off the rails, apparently deeply paranoid -- let's not put him in charge.

The minimum we should expect of Bush in return for dropping impeachment (or not) is that he cease breaking the law. Despite the opinions of Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, etc., the president of the United States does not have the authority to set aside the law.

....Snip"

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/14627877.htm

[Minnesota Libra]

13. For God's Sake People Get a Clue - We talk Impeachment now and we do......

....the neocons/fundies job for them in the 06 Congressional elections. We need to have a majority in Congress BEFORE there can be any serious hopes of impeachment.

If there is any talk of impeachment right now every neocon/fundie type would go on TV and radio with, "See the Democratic Party/Liberals don't give a crap about you. All they want is impeachment." Is there anyone so stupid as to think that wouldn't bring every neocon/fundie out of the woodwork and to the polls in record numbers??

YES, I WANT TO SEE the WH Idiot and his "shoot them in the face" sidekick impeached as much as anyone - and probably more so than some of you - but I also realize we have to keep our eyes on the big picture and not get lost in the details. GET CONGRESS BACK FIRST - - then go on to bring impeachment proceedings.

Oh, and while I'm on this :rant: let's forget 08 for now. Concentrate of November 06. KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Correct - with one clarification.

Our candidates need to stress investigation and accountability. Meanwhile, we - the people - need to talk loudly about IMPEACHMENT to build a groundswell for after we take back Congress.

And yes, CONCENTRATE ON NOVEMBER '06! KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE!!

:patriot:

Never Give Up.