Is Democratic Underground AT THE VERY LEAST in agreement about opening probes first???

[Selatius]

Can DU at least get on the same page on this preliminary point before moving to the next stepping stone of seriously contemplating impeachment in the lower House? Are you guys willing to wait however long it takes for congressional probes to finish investigating and gathering evidence before ripping each other apart on the board?

If the probes last several months to several years, do you have the intestinal fortitude to wait through that period without ripping the other half of DU that may disagree with your opinion with respect to impeachment? Is that asking too much, DU?

I'm not telling people to shut up. If you can hold a civil conversation and disagree on a particular point about impeachment without degenerating into a mudslinging contest, then I encourage full and open debate on the matter, but it gets tiring seeing people accuse others here of being divorced from reality or being Bush enablers by giving him a pass on killing 3,000 troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as if that was a simple "oops" mistake.

See, one of the things with consensus building that I admire is that we move based on all the common ground we agree upon.

I think it's safe to assume we ALL AGREE on opening up government probes on how government contracts were awarded in Iraq, who planned the joke known as post-war reconstruction, who exactly is liable and/or accomplices to the felony of outing an undercover CIA agent, why the government ignored pre-9/11 warnings like the Presidential Daily Brief or feigned ignorance of Project Able Danger, and maybe find out exactly who was present at Dick Cheney's energy task force meeting in 2001.

Can we not agree on this basic foundation? Is this not the best way?

[Richardo]

1. DU isn't in agreement about anything.

It's part of the charm, I guess.

[NoPasaran]

13. I agree!

[BurtWorm]

18. Fuck off!

;)

[NoPasaran]

22. DLC operative!

:}

[BurtWorm]

25. Moderate!

:patriot:

[NoPasaran]

28. Whig Lite!

:silly:

[BurtWorm]

33. Ow!

:crazy:

[robinlynne]

2. yes, yes, and yes.

I do want every penny put back into the public coffers though, ok?

[KittyWampus]

3. Yes, and this is for Conyers NOT Pelosi.

[H2O Man]

4. Great question!!!!

I sure as heck am. And I question why others seem to be opposed to it.

[Avalux]

5. This post is unnecessary.

DU has rules about civility and people who enforce those rules. Leave it to them.

[Bob3]

6. yes probes - deep and hard - don't stop until you get to the back of their teeth.

but considering the number of gop closet cases they might like that.

Oh investigations. Never mind.

[truthisfreedom]

7. whatever Speaker Pelosi would like to do sounds fine. drain the swamp,

first 100 hours...

[mmonk]

8. Well certainly all these need to be set up.

These things cannot go unaddressed. What exactly is the question?

[still_one]

9. Yes investigations on Iraq are appropriate, but if we are stupid enough to pursue

impeachment with only two years left, we will destroy ourseleves in the process

If crimes have been committed, pursue it AFTER they are out of office. The people want us to address Iraq, social security, medicare, jobs, global warming, the environment, education, but NOT two years of wasting it on impeachment

That is my take, and I believe impeachment would be the worst mistake. That does NOT mean I do NOT think hearings should NOT be held, I do, I just see only a propagation of a blood fued that will NEVER end if we go through an impeachment

[mmonk]

16. Are you saying that congress cannot do more than one thing?

By the way, if there were crimes against the constitution, then the oath of office requires protection and defense of it. Remember, people are being locked up, tortured, spied upon, and what not. If you were being victimized by any of these things, how long would you want to wait? And technically, you're not free until this is addressed.

[still_one]

20. I am saying I am glad Pelosi is the Speaker of the House

[mmonk]

34. What line?

[KansDem]

10. !

:thumbsup:

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. YES. The hearings will lead to IMPEACHMENT. n/t

[Gwerlain]

12. Not at all...

we have ignored social equity for over a decade. That is the most important business before the upcoming Congress. Once that business is rolling, THEN comes the time to address oversight. I have no objection to pursuing it... but only if it is not at the cost of upstaging other business that I feel is more pressing.

[AntiFascist]

19. Um, spending trillions on war...

doesn't that detract a bit from social programs? Even with the changes taking place, there is no real talk about anything significantly changing on the war anytime soon. Focusing on the real corruption could bring about a quick change, I could almost guarantee.

[Gwerlain]

27. Four points to consider...

First, if the Dems are perceived as pursuing vengeance before business, it won't play well in '08. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

Second, the administration runs the war, not the legislature... so the dems must persuade, because they can't order. Impeachment makes a nice stick; funding makes another. I'm sure Pelosi has a few carrots in mind. She's smart. If I was payin' closer attention, I could probably enumerate a few.

Third, if we just walk away, I guarantee the whole damn thing falls apart. We walk out, the mess just gets worse... and we continue to get the blame. After all, we made the mess in the first place. They got three factions: the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds, and death squads for each one, plus insurgents. I ain't sayin forever, or even for long... but we can help, and we should help. Howard Dean kinda froze up with Tweety last night, but I heard his message; did you? Let me put it this way: it was a mistake to go in in the first place, but now we did it, it would be a worse mistake to just walk away. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Fourth, investigation is an obvious part of "draining the swamp." So keep your pants on. We'll get to it. She said so. In language that wouldn't scare the independents.

[AntiFascist]

35. My response....

1. This should not be presented as "pursuing vengeance", rather as pursuing justice and trying to correct a very corrupt system.

2. I'm sure that Pelosi has a very focused strategy for what she wants to accomplish, but she should not be dictating to Conyers or anyone else what it is that should be investigated. Why not start by investigating Bush and Cheney's ties to war profiteering and perhaps those elements of terrorism which have benefited certain ones financially?

3. Is it such a leap of faith to assume that one reason there is no plan, long-term or short-term, to end the war is because some people are making incredible profits from it? No, we're not likely to be able to just walk away from the war, but now we have the leverage to stop the obscene profiteering, force some changes, and be more efficient.

4. That's good to know, but the sooner the better for the above reasons.

[AntiFascist]

14. We're not "ripping each other apart"!

Pay attention to the Gates' threads, they are quite telling.

[skids]

15. Probes second (but assuredly.) Agenda first.

For example, what would be the better thing to do about the Marianas sweat shops? Open a probe? No. The better thing to do is to shut them down by including them in a federal minimum wage and worker's protection law. Then probe.

We must focus first on rescuing the still-victimized, not on just revenge. In a few areas immediate probes may be warranted, though. I'm sure enough of them to keep Conyers plenty busy.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Probes absolutely YES. But Impeachment? Get real.

Forget impeachment. Pelosi is too intelligent to touch that tarbaby. The only hope there is for impeachment would be if some stinking corpse fell out of Bush's closet in full view of the Republican Senate leadership, because without it, the Senate won't convict. Pelosi won't go down that road unless conviction is a sure bet.

[Selatius]

23. Generally, I'm on the fence about impeachment, but I do favor probes

For instance, I want to know where the 10 billion in reconstruction dollars went missing or who met under Dick Cheney's energy task force. While my bias says impeach the man, my best advice to Pelosi would be to open probes in the background, carry forward the legislative agenda with all the bills Dems want to pass and such, and only address the issue of "impeach, or not impeach" only until after all the probes have finished. Even then, it is likely Bush will have been out of office for a while before the probes finish. If that be the case--and I think it probably will be--then this will be not be an impeachment issue at all, just a prosecution for felonies for breaking the law.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. An old list.

* 2004 election rigging, vote suppression, and more.
* 2000 election vote count.
* 2001-08-06 Presidential Daily Briefing ignored.
* Ashcroft de-emphasizing counter-terrorism before 9/11.
* Blank seven minutes on 9/11.
* Patriot Act. Patriot Act 2.
* Bush to Clarke on 9/11: "Get Iraq".
* Faith based community grants.
* Faith based e-voting, voter intimidation, voter discrimination.
* Faith based rejection of Science: Global Warming, stem cells.
* Faith based missile defence.
* Faith based intelligence (manipulation of intelligence).
* Faith based peace (no planning for winning the peace in Iraq).
* Faith based contracts: Halliburton no-bids and overcharges in Iraq.
* Feith based invasions (Israeli spy: Pentagon: Douglas Feith, Chalabi).
* Destroying Valerie Plame's work and career.
* Abandoning Afghanistan to clobber Iraq on Bush's election timetable.
* Illegally moving $700 million out of Afghanistan Fund to seed Iraq War.
* Sending troops to Iraq without body armor.
* Planning to have Iraq pay for the post-war.
* Bush avoiding soldier funerals.
* Forbidding publishing returning coffins photos.
* Jettisoning long time allies.
* Abandonment of Palestinians to Sharon's mercies or lack thereof.
* Rumsfailed incompetence and the backdoor draft.
* Abu Ghraib and Whitehouse torture memos and policies.
* Secret detentions.
* Failing to secure humankind's heritage in Bhagdad museum.
* Blowing cover of MNN Khan double agent in Aug. 2004
* Politicizing terror alerts.
* Cutting and hindering port and container security.
* Mandating schools give student names, addresses to military recruiters.
* Removing asset forfeiture law pamphlets from libraries.
* Proclaiming "No child left behind" and cutting funding.
* Cutting vet benefits and vet hospitals.
* Tax cuts for the rich.
* Passing spending cuts down, squeezing states and local government.
* Reversing huge surplus to huge deficit burdening our children.
* Stuffing Strategic Petroleum Reserve at highest prices.
* Enron. Kenneth Lay who?
* Boeing deals with Air Force are probed.
* Massive accounting irregularities under Bremer ($8.8 billion).
* 9/11 commission: avoidance, obstruction, conclusions.
* Lowered Environmental Standards: arsenic, mercury
* Closed door energy policy writing exclusively with energy companies.
* Supported military coup in Venezuela against elected Chavez.
* Lying about the cost of the Medicare drug bill.
* Plans to test all Americans for mental health.
* Stealing memos from Democratic Congresspeople 2002. (verification?)
* Riggs Bank (verification).
* Not so Swift Boat Vets. Smear McClain, Clelland, Jamie Gorelick, Kerry.
* Exploiting NY firefighters and Iraqi soccer team in political ads.
* Considering cancelling the 2004 election.
* Illegal use of Homeland Security to get Texas Democrats for redistricting.
* Recess appointments of ultra-right Judges Pryor and Pickering.
* Locking up Reagan and GHWB presidential papers.
* Bush has divided America after promising to unite it.

Did I mention Halliburton?

[Jack Rabbit]

21. I am

I've been for impeachment all along and nothing Speaker-elect Pelosi says changes that.

I hope it has always been understood that it is important to do it by the book. I don't believe in kangaroo courts when Bush institutes them; I don't believe in kangaroo courts to try Bush, either.

[democrat_patriot]

24. Yes. Probe away. Use a very large probe.

The damage from the investigation alone is worth it. Hearing for years about the cover-ups straight into 2008 election season.

[Beetwasher]

26. Yup, Probe In One End And Out The Other

Probe 'til you can't probe no more. Probe 'til it hurts.

[baby_mouse]

29. Probes, YES, certainly, THEN, if the wind is favourable, IMPEACHMENT

But ONLY when, IF EVER, the wind is Very Damn favourable or it will backfire *horribly*.

And we've all had QUITE ENOUGH of Republicans in power, I think, HAVEN'T WE, O Best Beloveds?

[kestrel91316]

30. Well OF COURSE there are going to be investigations first.

And if the Dems decide they have enough Repubs on board to warrant proceeding with impeachment AND CONVICTION, then they will proceed.

I for one don't want another waste-of-time Clinton-style impeachment where they knew full well in advance they could never get a conviction. That was wrong then, and it would be wrong now.

We have PLENTY of avenues to ruin these thugs' lives even without impeachment.

What we probably ought to do is go after the criminals in the Senate first, get them removed (and possibly replaced with Dem appointees) and THEN se if we have the votes to go after Bush.

[warrens]

32. The votes are not there for impeachment

I want to see lobbyists exiled, earmarks banned, the energy plan investigated...there's SO much to do. Plus, we get all the secrets the Repukes were hiding from us. All the emails. All kindsa goodies. Impeachment ain't gonna happen.